Agenda
Affirmative action for Human Rights violations due to NATO-led interventions
2011 Libyan Intervention - Success or Failure?
Astha Gupta, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), discusses the council proceedings wherein the delegates voiced their opinion on the operations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), in Libya, during the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity" ... "imposing a ban on all flights in the country's airspace – a no-fly zone – and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters."
The resolution was taken in response to events during the Libyan Civil War and military operations began, with American and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertaking sorties across Libya, and a naval blockade by coalition forces.
The discussion saw the delegates assessing the aftermath of the intervention. The Delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands) started the discussion by pointing out that the intention of the intervention was not to set up a new government, but to protect the citizens of Libya. By saying that "inaction is also an action", the delegate went on to emphasise the fact that NATO was successful in preventing a potential genocide, and ensured minimal loss of life. Support for this stance came from the delegates of the Republic of South Africa, the United States of America (USA), the Republic of Portugal, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, who felt that, though there were some shortcomings, the involvement of the international community was important in order to save the lives of the Libyan citizens.
Strong opposition came from the delegates of countries like the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan), Republic of Iraq, People's Republic of Bangladesh, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Most of them felt that the USA used the Libyan crisis as a means to exploit the natural resources, particularly the oil reserves, of the country. According to the Delegate of Afghanistan, the "USA funded fighters in Libya" even before they began the intervention. Talking about the loss of civilian lives, the Delegate of the Republic of Ecuador felt that the NATO had been successful not in saving the citizens of Libya, but in "killing innocent citizens, causing damage, and acquiring oil reserves". The delegate went on to stress that the NATO should claim responsibility for these actions.
Citing the Principle of Proportionality, the Delegate of the Russian Federation felt that by causing even more human rights violations than during Gaddafi's regime, the NATO had clearly been unsuccessful in its operations.
To sum up, just like a pendulum, the debate kept oscillating between the aforementioned views. One group of nations kept reiterating their beliefs that it was important for the countries to step up and help Libya, and that their efforts had been successful. On the other hand, the rest of the delegates kept blaming the NATO for the loss of innocent lives and for the humanitarian crisis being used as a cover to establish stronghold on Libya's rich oil supply.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity" ... "imposing a ban on all flights in the country's airspace – a no-fly zone – and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters."
The resolution was taken in response to events during the Libyan Civil War and military operations began, with American and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertaking sorties across Libya, and a naval blockade by coalition forces.
The discussion saw the delegates assessing the aftermath of the intervention. The Delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands) started the discussion by pointing out that the intention of the intervention was not to set up a new government, but to protect the citizens of Libya. By saying that "inaction is also an action", the delegate went on to emphasise the fact that NATO was successful in preventing a potential genocide, and ensured minimal loss of life. Support for this stance came from the delegates of the Republic of South Africa, the United States of America (USA), the Republic of Portugal, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, who felt that, though there were some shortcomings, the involvement of the international community was important in order to save the lives of the Libyan citizens.
Strong opposition came from the delegates of countries like the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan), Republic of Iraq, People's Republic of Bangladesh, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Most of them felt that the USA used the Libyan crisis as a means to exploit the natural resources, particularly the oil reserves, of the country. According to the Delegate of Afghanistan, the "USA funded fighters in Libya" even before they began the intervention. Talking about the loss of civilian lives, the Delegate of the Republic of Ecuador felt that the NATO had been successful not in saving the citizens of Libya, but in "killing innocent citizens, causing damage, and acquiring oil reserves". The delegate went on to stress that the NATO should claim responsibility for these actions.
Citing the Principle of Proportionality, the Delegate of the Russian Federation felt that by causing even more human rights violations than during Gaddafi's regime, the NATO had clearly been unsuccessful in its operations.
To sum up, just like a pendulum, the debate kept oscillating between the aforementioned views. One group of nations kept reiterating their beliefs that it was important for the countries to step up and help Libya, and that their efforts had been successful. On the other hand, the rest of the delegates kept blaming the NATO for the loss of innocent lives and for the humanitarian crisis being used as a cover to establish stronghold on Libya's rich oil supply.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Responsibility is not 'US', it is us.
Responsibility is the state of being accountable, or answerable, for something within one’s power. Enos Joel Makarios J, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), explains how the given power can be shared to reach the goal.
The present scenario, where in human rights have been violated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), has seen how they were irresponsible in upholding their oath. Many view it as a violation, but few regard it as a way to bring peace into order. The United States of America (USA) has many strategies up their sleeves, and the work they do defines what type of people they are.
The articles charted by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) show cases of how the international community should be under proper governance. So, if anyone does not abide, then actions can be taken by the UNSC. In this case, the works of NATO can be stopped by UNSC directly.
Presently, few European nations have started the process of letting in refugees for safety, and proper living and special privileges, since they have come in for help. In Libya, violations carried out on humanitarian grounds can be stopped by UNSC interventions, but that is not happening. The bombings carried out by the NATO have destroyed many homes and lives in that region.
In the mount of March 2011, the NATO took control of Libya, and the military operations were carried out. As the year passed, a system of government changed, but the impact that was created by the NATO, was not erased from the minds of the people. As the terrorist activities started, the responsibility was again given back to dominating countries for protection. The incidents happened again, where in which, the NATO did not follow the laws set by UNSC, and the NATO itself. People lost their faith in the organisation and they believed in migration. In most of the educational institutions, students are taught about the drawbacks in migrating from home country. On a serious note, the super powers want to gather people for another fight, that might rise again in a nuclear or biological context.
There are many nations who have their representatives in the international community. As a true citizen of the world, have we ever thought about any proper representative for the affected regions? We simply take the cries of those people as the dirt on our shoulder and we dust it off. Have we ever noticed it? These people have also no source to even fight for their own right. These are the people who are broken, dumped, separated, and hidden from the face of the world. Many watch the television for ‘entertainment’, but do we even look at news channels?
The NATO is not only the main source for the regions, but there are others surrounding the regions, who can lend a hand. A council has to be set up, under the surveillance of the civilians of the affected regions, so that their aid can be specified. NATO can monitor the flow of goods into the states, so that if any issue arises NATO is not blamed. In this manner, the work load that the NATO is carrying could be reduced.
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today,” said Abraham Lincoln, the President who fought for freedom of his own people. He was a person who was liked by all. He took the responsibility of the failures that his country committed over liberation. That is the true action of responsibility, and by words, many leaders have shown it. In real time, if a class in school makes a mistake, then the leader takes the responsibility to accept his incapability to lead. Likewise, the NATO backed by the United States of America (USA), have to accept their errors, in order to share responsibility.
As threats are arising on all the sides for the USA, it is time for them to act upon. If work is done by only one set of people, then an effective solution cannot be achieved. So, responsibility is not only for you and me, but everyone has a role to play in it. The NATO has to realise that only if they have a friendly relation with others can they receive help when they are in trouble.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Source:
• https://thinkprogress.org/the-forgotten-conflict-in-libya-explained-4ffc134b0a9a#.laa3hj24h
• https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/responsibility.html
• http://www.dictionary.com/browse/responsibility
The present scenario, where in human rights have been violated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), has seen how they were irresponsible in upholding their oath. Many view it as a violation, but few regard it as a way to bring peace into order. The United States of America (USA) has many strategies up their sleeves, and the work they do defines what type of people they are.
The articles charted by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) show cases of how the international community should be under proper governance. So, if anyone does not abide, then actions can be taken by the UNSC. In this case, the works of NATO can be stopped by UNSC directly.
Presently, few European nations have started the process of letting in refugees for safety, and proper living and special privileges, since they have come in for help. In Libya, violations carried out on humanitarian grounds can be stopped by UNSC interventions, but that is not happening. The bombings carried out by the NATO have destroyed many homes and lives in that region.
In the mount of March 2011, the NATO took control of Libya, and the military operations were carried out. As the year passed, a system of government changed, but the impact that was created by the NATO, was not erased from the minds of the people. As the terrorist activities started, the responsibility was again given back to dominating countries for protection. The incidents happened again, where in which, the NATO did not follow the laws set by UNSC, and the NATO itself. People lost their faith in the organisation and they believed in migration. In most of the educational institutions, students are taught about the drawbacks in migrating from home country. On a serious note, the super powers want to gather people for another fight, that might rise again in a nuclear or biological context.
There are many nations who have their representatives in the international community. As a true citizen of the world, have we ever thought about any proper representative for the affected regions? We simply take the cries of those people as the dirt on our shoulder and we dust it off. Have we ever noticed it? These people have also no source to even fight for their own right. These are the people who are broken, dumped, separated, and hidden from the face of the world. Many watch the television for ‘entertainment’, but do we even look at news channels?
The NATO is not only the main source for the regions, but there are others surrounding the regions, who can lend a hand. A council has to be set up, under the surveillance of the civilians of the affected regions, so that their aid can be specified. NATO can monitor the flow of goods into the states, so that if any issue arises NATO is not blamed. In this manner, the work load that the NATO is carrying could be reduced.
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today,” said Abraham Lincoln, the President who fought for freedom of his own people. He was a person who was liked by all. He took the responsibility of the failures that his country committed over liberation. That is the true action of responsibility, and by words, many leaders have shown it. In real time, if a class in school makes a mistake, then the leader takes the responsibility to accept his incapability to lead. Likewise, the NATO backed by the United States of America (USA), have to accept their errors, in order to share responsibility.
As threats are arising on all the sides for the USA, it is time for them to act upon. If work is done by only one set of people, then an effective solution cannot be achieved. So, responsibility is not only for you and me, but everyone has a role to play in it. The NATO has to realise that only if they have a friendly relation with others can they receive help when they are in trouble.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Source:
• https://thinkprogress.org/the-forgotten-conflict-in-libya-explained-4ffc134b0a9a#.laa3hj24h
• https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/responsibility.html
• http://www.dictionary.com/browse/responsibility
Can Post Conflict Measures Suffice the Instability of the Region?
Enos Joel Makarios J, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), brings about the various policies discussed by various delegates which had to be achieved before the day ended in the council.
Most of the delegates stressed on post-intervention, which had led to the instability in the countries’ growth. They raised questions on whether the United States of America (USA) should have to send in measures so that the damages they may have caused might be brought back to normality.
The Delegate of Netherlands said that power vacuum led to the instability in the region, and this made everyone in the council think about the various factors that led into this instability. Many confessed that the intervention was a welcoming one as it was a particular strategy, used by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), to bring control of the place. However, they questioned NATO’s plan to rectify the damages done in order to establish control. This question stayed in the minds of all the delegates and was heavily deliberated upon.
The delegates of Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Belgium clearly elaborated on the lack of human resources available in the affected region. The Delegate of Saudi Arabia brought in the nation’s ideology of how their economic system works, when their regions fall into any crisis.
“First, the border of the nations should be secured…”, said the Delegate of Libya. The delegate opined on the necessity of quick deployment of relief measure as they would not be able to withstand another hit from anyone. Setting up of educational institutions to reduce dropouts due to this chaos, rehab centres, tax reduction, and much more policies were discussed by delegates with an extended time of discussion.
Many said these policies discussed are just theories and how NATO is planning to implement it. As always, the dominant country, which was being criticised, had something up their sleeve and took the floor perfectly for a few moments.
All these policies where shot fires on the delegate of the United States of America (USA), who later confidently replied to all the questions. “Civilian harm mitigation from own actions”, this silenced the session for a moment as the delegate accepted it. Then the delegate spoke more about the NATO training the local forces and helping in defence line. This pleased most of the delegates and the delegate of USA had the floor for the entire session.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Most of the delegates stressed on post-intervention, which had led to the instability in the countries’ growth. They raised questions on whether the United States of America (USA) should have to send in measures so that the damages they may have caused might be brought back to normality.
The Delegate of Netherlands said that power vacuum led to the instability in the region, and this made everyone in the council think about the various factors that led into this instability. Many confessed that the intervention was a welcoming one as it was a particular strategy, used by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), to bring control of the place. However, they questioned NATO’s plan to rectify the damages done in order to establish control. This question stayed in the minds of all the delegates and was heavily deliberated upon.
The delegates of Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Belgium clearly elaborated on the lack of human resources available in the affected region. The Delegate of Saudi Arabia brought in the nation’s ideology of how their economic system works, when their regions fall into any crisis.
“First, the border of the nations should be secured…”, said the Delegate of Libya. The delegate opined on the necessity of quick deployment of relief measure as they would not be able to withstand another hit from anyone. Setting up of educational institutions to reduce dropouts due to this chaos, rehab centres, tax reduction, and much more policies were discussed by delegates with an extended time of discussion.
Many said these policies discussed are just theories and how NATO is planning to implement it. As always, the dominant country, which was being criticised, had something up their sleeve and took the floor perfectly for a few moments.
All these policies where shot fires on the delegate of the United States of America (USA), who later confidently replied to all the questions. “Civilian harm mitigation from own actions”, this silenced the session for a moment as the delegate accepted it. Then the delegate spoke more about the NATO training the local forces and helping in defence line. This pleased most of the delegates and the delegate of USA had the floor for the entire session.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
PLAYING THE BLAME GAME
Have the interventions to restore peace and democracy resulted in enhancing peace, or have they given a chance to extremists who wait patiently for situations like these to gain control?
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reporter, Astha Gupta, conducts an opinion poll to have a clearer view of the stances of the various nations regarding the same.
"Many believe that North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-led interventions in the Middle East led to the creation of a power vacuum and political instability. This has given many extremist groups a chance to seize power. Do you agree that the rise of institutions, like the Islamic State, is a result of NATO's failure in establishing a strong democratic institution in the respective countries where they intervened?"
Out of the 39 delegates, 17 replied in the affirmative. Anti-NATO countries like Cuba, Libya, Russia, Ghana, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were among the ones who felt that NATO was indeed responsible for the rise of terrorist organisations. The Delegate of Amnesty International, too, felt that NATO has been unsuccessful in establishing democratic institutions in areas of political instability.
The ones who abstained from voting included the Delegate of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Delegate of Bangladesh, and the Delegate of Afghanistan.
Finally, 15 delegates strongly disagreed with the notion that NATO should be blamed for the rise of any non-state extremist groups. These included member nations of the NATO like France, Croatia, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, and Netherlands.
The results of the poll clearly depict divided opinions among the various countries regarding the agenda in question.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reporter, Astha Gupta, conducts an opinion poll to have a clearer view of the stances of the various nations regarding the same.
"Many believe that North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-led interventions in the Middle East led to the creation of a power vacuum and political instability. This has given many extremist groups a chance to seize power. Do you agree that the rise of institutions, like the Islamic State, is a result of NATO's failure in establishing a strong democratic institution in the respective countries where they intervened?"
Out of the 39 delegates, 17 replied in the affirmative. Anti-NATO countries like Cuba, Libya, Russia, Ghana, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were among the ones who felt that NATO was indeed responsible for the rise of terrorist organisations. The Delegate of Amnesty International, too, felt that NATO has been unsuccessful in establishing democratic institutions in areas of political instability.
The ones who abstained from voting included the Delegate of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Delegate of Bangladesh, and the Delegate of Afghanistan.
Finally, 15 delegates strongly disagreed with the notion that NATO should be blamed for the rise of any non-state extremist groups. These included member nations of the NATO like France, Croatia, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, and Netherlands.
The results of the poll clearly depict divided opinions among the various countries regarding the agenda in question.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Is One Person Accountable for everything that is happening?
If a person had promised to do the job, the and next day shows up not completing, that person is accountable. Enos Joel Makarios J, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), shares the views of accountability of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) due to their works.
The discussion was about the NATO accepting the crimes committed by them in the regions they have intervened. Various delegates spoke about the accountability of the NATO in the intervened countries, wherein delegates of Canada, Germany, and Russia where the ones eager to talk. This discussion was utilised by the delegates to choose sides, and later, helped in forming blocks for working papers.
“Diverse organisations should be allowed to support the region, and not just NATO”, said, the Delegate of Germany, to show that NATO should welcome third parties to support cause instead of pouring all their resources. The accountability of NATO’s actions clearly show about the diverse ideology that they are following to acquire a region. Few delegates started raising questions on few Articles, of United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which should be amended.
The Delegate of Saudi Arabia clearly stated the difference between piracy and security, where now the intervened countries should be given security rather than piracy. “Piracy is intervention but security is future saving” was the key line, that made a huge impact on the delegates. According to the delegate, if security has to be provided to these regions, then the international body should be the only source to aid them.
On the contrary, few delegates started to raise issues created by Russia in Ukraine. This arose when the Delegate of Russia spoke mainly about the United States of America (USA) leading the NATO and causing the problem. This stance by Russia was rebutted by few delegates which, in turn, showed how the USA is still being trusted even though it is a state which caused the problem.
Some spoke on accountability, as well as the reparation, that can be issued by various member nations. If the mindset of helping tendency is not fixed, then we are not regarded as human beings. “NATO destroyed 15 families…. Who is accountable?”, a question put forth by Delegate of Russia to USA in a low tone.
Many delegates made a point, on the accountability, spoke mainly on the helping measures that can be provided even though faults have been made. A quote said by many people in the world “doing wrong is a humans mentality”, this was conveyed in a different manner by the Delegate of Netherlands, where he said that NATO can do wrong, but it was for a good reason. Few did not like the speeches in favour of NATO, as those where the nations who were badly affected.
As USA accepted that it was accountable, and have started to help people, it is also the member nations to back up the organisation by sending in Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as they have the idea to target people and bring back normality. The session closed with an idea that all the nations including the small state is accountable if no aid is reached on time.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
The discussion was about the NATO accepting the crimes committed by them in the regions they have intervened. Various delegates spoke about the accountability of the NATO in the intervened countries, wherein delegates of Canada, Germany, and Russia where the ones eager to talk. This discussion was utilised by the delegates to choose sides, and later, helped in forming blocks for working papers.
“Diverse organisations should be allowed to support the region, and not just NATO”, said, the Delegate of Germany, to show that NATO should welcome third parties to support cause instead of pouring all their resources. The accountability of NATO’s actions clearly show about the diverse ideology that they are following to acquire a region. Few delegates started raising questions on few Articles, of United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which should be amended.
The Delegate of Saudi Arabia clearly stated the difference between piracy and security, where now the intervened countries should be given security rather than piracy. “Piracy is intervention but security is future saving” was the key line, that made a huge impact on the delegates. According to the delegate, if security has to be provided to these regions, then the international body should be the only source to aid them.
On the contrary, few delegates started to raise issues created by Russia in Ukraine. This arose when the Delegate of Russia spoke mainly about the United States of America (USA) leading the NATO and causing the problem. This stance by Russia was rebutted by few delegates which, in turn, showed how the USA is still being trusted even though it is a state which caused the problem.
Some spoke on accountability, as well as the reparation, that can be issued by various member nations. If the mindset of helping tendency is not fixed, then we are not regarded as human beings. “NATO destroyed 15 families…. Who is accountable?”, a question put forth by Delegate of Russia to USA in a low tone.
Many delegates made a point, on the accountability, spoke mainly on the helping measures that can be provided even though faults have been made. A quote said by many people in the world “doing wrong is a humans mentality”, this was conveyed in a different manner by the Delegate of Netherlands, where he said that NATO can do wrong, but it was for a good reason. Few did not like the speeches in favour of NATO, as those where the nations who were badly affected.
As USA accepted that it was accountable, and have started to help people, it is also the member nations to back up the organisation by sending in Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as they have the idea to target people and bring back normality. The session closed with an idea that all the nations including the small state is accountable if no aid is reached on time.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Friendship versus Politics
Does the proverb ‘A friend in need is a friend indeed’ apply everywhere? Enos Joel Makarios J, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), discusses whether friendship is greater than politics or vice versa.
The most treasured memory of a person is from their own childhood, because that is the period we cannot revert to. Something similar happened to me, when I was in council thinking of my childhood, and even imagining the shattered childhood of my people in Syria. Those children did not involve themselves in any terrorist activity then why should they be targeted? So, I raised my concerns in the UNHRC, about the regions where the violations happen, but no compensation is met. When the council started, there were only delegates of the affected regions, and a few countries who are members of the NATO. The United States of America (USA), Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK), were the main people who were present in the council.
When we adjourned for lunch break, I recollected my memory about my three best friends Aaron, Matthew, and Selvandro, who migrated to the USA. Matthew died when there was a terror strike on 11 September 2009, and I was unable to visit his funeral. Then Selvandro sent a post, after 15 years, saying that he was coming back to his home in Syria via Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport. On 27 June 2016, I get a call from the Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport, saying they got this number from a dead body. So there went my next buddy as I wondered why these terrorists were created by God.
When the session began, three delegates walked in, and out of them, one was so different from the rest, in terms of walking style and speech modulation. The representative, who was an odd man out, was the Delegate of USA. I did not notice his speech, but I noticed his hair style, which was so similar to that of Aaron’s. The speech given by the Delegate of the USA was accepted, and many applauded for it.
Then the session adjourned for break wherein, with all my courage, I went to meet the Delegate of USA. Since he was mingling with other delegates, it was not easy to bring him out of the group discussion. I just enquired about the extra military measures that USA might take in Syria. He also replied with a genuine solution. Before ending our conversation, I asked him his name and he replied that his name was Aaron. Then I bowed my head a bit lower and tears flowed from my eyes. I raised my head and said, “hi, how are you?”. With the tone and expression, I could make out that Aaron was also filled in tears, and immediately, we hugged each other.
We, then, spoke about our childhood, and about the deaths of our friends. Then, he asked me whether the home is safe from the intervention caused by his country. I showed the present situation on my phone. A photograph, where, a person was crying for his dead friend. Then, I asked him about USA’s ideas for the states in which they intervened. He replied, “I have got a set of sheets from my President, wherein, I need to talk what is in that alone and no change of words too. I asked him why he was in the USA. He gave me a reply, which disturbed my heart, “this is politics and I will bide by what is in it”.
When the session began, we sent in chits talking about Libya’s helping strategy, Russia’s interests in the Middle East for oil, and more, promising aid to each other. When my turn to speak came, I spoke in praise of the USA for their works, and other business related matters. When Aaron got a chance to speak, he elaborated of issues which were not relevant to the conversation made via chits. After the speech, we exchanged uneasy frowns. When the session was adjourned for the day, I asked him if a friend was more important than one’s political carrier. He chose latter as it provided him resources to sustain his lifestyle. It was said to see that his growth was defined by goals and not the deaths of two friends. When I told him this, his faced turned pale, and we went on different paths.
So, let us decide which side are we going to be in, we might choose our respective nations, but one day, borders will be erased, and when you have no place to go, a friend will help you out.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
The most treasured memory of a person is from their own childhood, because that is the period we cannot revert to. Something similar happened to me, when I was in council thinking of my childhood, and even imagining the shattered childhood of my people in Syria. Those children did not involve themselves in any terrorist activity then why should they be targeted? So, I raised my concerns in the UNHRC, about the regions where the violations happen, but no compensation is met. When the council started, there were only delegates of the affected regions, and a few countries who are members of the NATO. The United States of America (USA), Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK), were the main people who were present in the council.
When we adjourned for lunch break, I recollected my memory about my three best friends Aaron, Matthew, and Selvandro, who migrated to the USA. Matthew died when there was a terror strike on 11 September 2009, and I was unable to visit his funeral. Then Selvandro sent a post, after 15 years, saying that he was coming back to his home in Syria via Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport. On 27 June 2016, I get a call from the Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport, saying they got this number from a dead body. So there went my next buddy as I wondered why these terrorists were created by God.
When the session began, three delegates walked in, and out of them, one was so different from the rest, in terms of walking style and speech modulation. The representative, who was an odd man out, was the Delegate of USA. I did not notice his speech, but I noticed his hair style, which was so similar to that of Aaron’s. The speech given by the Delegate of the USA was accepted, and many applauded for it.
Then the session adjourned for break wherein, with all my courage, I went to meet the Delegate of USA. Since he was mingling with other delegates, it was not easy to bring him out of the group discussion. I just enquired about the extra military measures that USA might take in Syria. He also replied with a genuine solution. Before ending our conversation, I asked him his name and he replied that his name was Aaron. Then I bowed my head a bit lower and tears flowed from my eyes. I raised my head and said, “hi, how are you?”. With the tone and expression, I could make out that Aaron was also filled in tears, and immediately, we hugged each other.
We, then, spoke about our childhood, and about the deaths of our friends. Then, he asked me whether the home is safe from the intervention caused by his country. I showed the present situation on my phone. A photograph, where, a person was crying for his dead friend. Then, I asked him about USA’s ideas for the states in which they intervened. He replied, “I have got a set of sheets from my President, wherein, I need to talk what is in that alone and no change of words too. I asked him why he was in the USA. He gave me a reply, which disturbed my heart, “this is politics and I will bide by what is in it”.
When the session began, we sent in chits talking about Libya’s helping strategy, Russia’s interests in the Middle East for oil, and more, promising aid to each other. When my turn to speak came, I spoke in praise of the USA for their works, and other business related matters. When Aaron got a chance to speak, he elaborated of issues which were not relevant to the conversation made via chits. After the speech, we exchanged uneasy frowns. When the session was adjourned for the day, I asked him if a friend was more important than one’s political carrier. He chose latter as it provided him resources to sustain his lifestyle. It was said to see that his growth was defined by goals and not the deaths of two friends. When I told him this, his faced turned pale, and we went on different paths.
So, let us decide which side are we going to be in, we might choose our respective nations, but one day, borders will be erased, and when you have no place to go, a friend will help you out.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
A Four Step Move
Enos Joel Makarios J, reporter, United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), elaborates on measures that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)should take, in order to be proper in the support that they provide.
Interventions made by the NATO, which were backed up by various countries or organisations, showcased that there were no ulterior motives for some countries. While intervening one’s privacy, it is like intervening into their life. Similarly, the NATO intervened, and the way of living for the states that they intervened in, has been changed. Even if they had carried many interventions, that resulted in the violation of human rights, they should focus on proper measures to reduce the number of casualties.
“We tried war, we tried aggression, and we tried intervention. None of it works. Why do not we try peace, as a science of human relations, not as some vague notion – as everyday works.” This was a quote by Dennis Kucinich, former of the United States of America (USA) representative. Peace talks are the final resort for any problems created between two countries. The reporter believes that, in here, the NATO should have peace talk with the affected places, so that there will a proper understanding for distribution of resources.
The members of the world urge the NATO to send in aid and be accountable for what has happened in the intervention. In the case of interventions in Somalia, they framed their mission as Operation Ocean Shield which happened in the year 2009. NATO joined its forces with European Union’s Operation Atlanta, and USA-led combined task force 151, believing that if this type of operation is carried out, then the level of terrorism will be reduced. But if NATO alone had made the move of stopping pirates in that region, then it might have been a disaster.
In the genesis of NATO, the USA signing pacts with European Union (EU), for protecting their country, was a good move of bringing peace after the era of Cold War. Then, the steps they took, to protect the countries in Europe, or any other places in world, were initially successful. When days passed by, the ideology of every heads of the countries changed, which led to the improper understanding of the prime goal of the NATO. They did their work of protection when United Nations was not able to, but mistakes led to the collateral damage in the countries where the interventions took place. Their first move should be to conduct proper talks with the affected and abide by the law.
Assume a person has been vaccinated by a hospital for chickenpox and miraculously ends up being diagnosed with chickenpox. Can the hospital deny their treatment to the patient simply because they had vaccinated him earlier? This is exactly what the NATO is probably doing by ignoring the violations of human rights in post-intervention setups. If the denial scenario still prolongs, then a difference among the member nations of the NATO is sure to occur, because there is no proper stability between the countries themselves, even though they are united by the ‘law’ which has loopholes. Joint decision making powers should be the second measure that the NATO should implement.
NATO should get down to ground zero, and help the intervened states, so that their actions can be praised. This can be the third move, that is to help people on the ground, instead of just speaking in councils like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), so that level of criticism is reduced in large.
Humanitarian aid like health camps, rebuilding of homes, setting up of education centres and teaching in it for free for a few years, and set up a government according to the needs of the citizens for a period of two years, are some other solutions. Through this, people in the affected regions can be benefited, as well as the other member nations (excluding the members of the NATO) can have trust, where in these organisations will not disturb their place of living. This can be their final move, that is, in understanding the particular need and providing it in an effective, and proper manner, which will increase their trust.
These four steps can bring out the best in an organisation. If these are followed by the NATO, then a seed of trust can be implanted for the future.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Interventions made by the NATO, which were backed up by various countries or organisations, showcased that there were no ulterior motives for some countries. While intervening one’s privacy, it is like intervening into their life. Similarly, the NATO intervened, and the way of living for the states that they intervened in, has been changed. Even if they had carried many interventions, that resulted in the violation of human rights, they should focus on proper measures to reduce the number of casualties.
“We tried war, we tried aggression, and we tried intervention. None of it works. Why do not we try peace, as a science of human relations, not as some vague notion – as everyday works.” This was a quote by Dennis Kucinich, former of the United States of America (USA) representative. Peace talks are the final resort for any problems created between two countries. The reporter believes that, in here, the NATO should have peace talk with the affected places, so that there will a proper understanding for distribution of resources.
The members of the world urge the NATO to send in aid and be accountable for what has happened in the intervention. In the case of interventions in Somalia, they framed their mission as Operation Ocean Shield which happened in the year 2009. NATO joined its forces with European Union’s Operation Atlanta, and USA-led combined task force 151, believing that if this type of operation is carried out, then the level of terrorism will be reduced. But if NATO alone had made the move of stopping pirates in that region, then it might have been a disaster.
In the genesis of NATO, the USA signing pacts with European Union (EU), for protecting their country, was a good move of bringing peace after the era of Cold War. Then, the steps they took, to protect the countries in Europe, or any other places in world, were initially successful. When days passed by, the ideology of every heads of the countries changed, which led to the improper understanding of the prime goal of the NATO. They did their work of protection when United Nations was not able to, but mistakes led to the collateral damage in the countries where the interventions took place. Their first move should be to conduct proper talks with the affected and abide by the law.
Assume a person has been vaccinated by a hospital for chickenpox and miraculously ends up being diagnosed with chickenpox. Can the hospital deny their treatment to the patient simply because they had vaccinated him earlier? This is exactly what the NATO is probably doing by ignoring the violations of human rights in post-intervention setups. If the denial scenario still prolongs, then a difference among the member nations of the NATO is sure to occur, because there is no proper stability between the countries themselves, even though they are united by the ‘law’ which has loopholes. Joint decision making powers should be the second measure that the NATO should implement.
NATO should get down to ground zero, and help the intervened states, so that their actions can be praised. This can be the third move, that is to help people on the ground, instead of just speaking in councils like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), so that level of criticism is reduced in large.
Humanitarian aid like health camps, rebuilding of homes, setting up of education centres and teaching in it for free for a few years, and set up a government according to the needs of the citizens for a period of two years, are some other solutions. Through this, people in the affected regions can be benefited, as well as the other member nations (excluding the members of the NATO) can have trust, where in these organisations will not disturb their place of living. This can be their final move, that is, in understanding the particular need and providing it in an effective, and proper manner, which will increase their trust.
These four steps can bring out the best in an organisation. If these are followed by the NATO, then a seed of trust can be implanted for the future.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Intervention: A Chessboard
Opinion of an individual does not remain the same always. Enos Joel Makarios J, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), shares the views on the reasons for intervention through a poll.
In the world, now, there are two cogs which keep our lifestyles in motions - politics and economy. If one falls, the other will rise, and vice versa. A quote by Cal Thomas states, “one of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician’s objective.” Politics was once considered as the method to reach freedom from a problem, but now, the path has changed. The interventions in Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. were considered as the measure to protect the regions from a genocide. Nevertheless, some knew that there was a covert reason for these interventions.
In the poll conducted, the question posed was,
“North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is being backed up by various countries. Do you think the reason for the intervention is political in nature or economical in nature?”
When the polls were out, it was surprising that many abstained from voting, saying that neither was the intention for this intervention. The countries which voted for the latter, stating that the intervention had economic motives, were the ones affected by such interventions. Very few said that the cause for interventions were political in nature.
It was clear that the NATO carried out these interventions without deliberation among the member nations so, it might not have been for political or economic grounds at all.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
In the world, now, there are two cogs which keep our lifestyles in motions - politics and economy. If one falls, the other will rise, and vice versa. A quote by Cal Thomas states, “one of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician’s objective.” Politics was once considered as the method to reach freedom from a problem, but now, the path has changed. The interventions in Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. were considered as the measure to protect the regions from a genocide. Nevertheless, some knew that there was a covert reason for these interventions.
In the poll conducted, the question posed was,
“North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is being backed up by various countries. Do you think the reason for the intervention is political in nature or economical in nature?”
When the polls were out, it was surprising that many abstained from voting, saying that neither was the intention for this intervention. The countries which voted for the latter, stating that the intervention had economic motives, were the ones affected by such interventions. Very few said that the cause for interventions were political in nature.
It was clear that the NATO carried out these interventions without deliberation among the member nations so, it might not have been for political or economic grounds at all.
(Edited by Srishti Sankaranarayanan).
Asking the Right Questions
Reporter Astha Gupta, from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), interviews the Delegate of the Republic of Cuba and the Delegate of the Kingdom of the Netherlands regarding their views on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-led interventions.
Q. Do you think the NATO has just become a platform for countries with similar ideologies to flex their muscles rather than a way to unite countries that have a shared desire for peace?
A. Delegate of Cuba: Yes. The Delegate of Cuba believes that the NATO is less of an organisation promoting 'peace and stability', and more of an enforcer of power to promote the vested interests of the member states. According to former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, who - in an interview - stated, "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business… I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria." It is evident that these NATO states think of their vested interests, only, and that its image as a 'peace enforcer' is nothing but a facade.
Delegate of the Netherlands: No. The Delegate firmly believes that its very function is to ensure peace in otherwise conflict-torn regions. It was started with the intention of providing military protection to the civilians and to provide economic stability. The delegate believes this fundamental principle has always been upheld.
Q. According to multiple media reports, former Cuban President Fidel Castro said that brutal military alliance has become the “most perfidious instrument of repression the history of humanity has known." What is your take on that?
A. Delegate of Cuba: Revolutionary leader Fidel Castro likened the clear hypocrisy that NATO represented to the Nazi SS. He stated “Many people are astonished when they hear the statements made by some European spokesmen for NATO when they speak with the style and face of the Nazi SS”. In his statement accusing United States of America (USA) and Israel of 'creating ISIS', the late leader was referring to the instability caused due to the 'power vacuum' created in the region, and how it enabled radical extremist organisations, like ISIS, to take over large swathes of land in Iraq and Syria.
Delegate of the Netherlands: If military intervention is indeed considered to be an unacceptable violation of sovereignty, then how do we deal with unbelievable human rights violations that are against every facet of our humanity? One must bear in mind that, firstly, NATO uses military intervention as the last resort. Secondly, NATO intervenes in a nation to prevent escalation of conflict and thereby maintain peace.
Q. What 'affirmative action' do you think should be taken to ensure proper compensation for the victims of NATO-led interventions?
A. Delegate of Cuba: 'Affirmative action' is defined as 'positive discrimination'. That is, providing special privileges and rights to the minority communities in a country. However, when we talk about taking affirmative action on states intervened by a NATO-led military force, we are talking about providing special privileges to an entire population of a country. Two questions arise: firstly, who will be liable to provide reparations for 'affirmative action' and, secondly, how will the resources be procured? The Delegate of Cuba believes that the liability for reparations should lie with the forces participating in the intervention, for they are not providing a service to the people of the state but atoning for their sins committed on those very people. Moreover, the delegate believes that the member states of NATO have more than enough resources to compensate the country destroyed by them several-fold. Take the example of the USA. President Donald Trump has, in his election campaign, promised to increase the military budget two-fold, which, in 2015, already stood at 597 billion USD. The delegate believes that these bourgeoisie member-countries think less about humanity and more about their personal gains from the destruction of a state. Cuba believes that affirmative action should be taken by ensuring a stable government, ensuring peace and stability, providing universal healthcare for the population, providing education and skill-set to the population, and assisting rebuilding of economy and infrastructure.
Delegate of the Netherlands: The Delegate believes that, with respect to affirmative action, there are 3 facets that should be considered: ensuring political stability, maintaining law and order, and providing capacity development. The delegate firmly believes that the entire international community should take responsibility and provide the same.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Q. Do you think the NATO has just become a platform for countries with similar ideologies to flex their muscles rather than a way to unite countries that have a shared desire for peace?
A. Delegate of Cuba: Yes. The Delegate of Cuba believes that the NATO is less of an organisation promoting 'peace and stability', and more of an enforcer of power to promote the vested interests of the member states. According to former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, who - in an interview - stated, "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business… I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria." It is evident that these NATO states think of their vested interests, only, and that its image as a 'peace enforcer' is nothing but a facade.
Delegate of the Netherlands: No. The Delegate firmly believes that its very function is to ensure peace in otherwise conflict-torn regions. It was started with the intention of providing military protection to the civilians and to provide economic stability. The delegate believes this fundamental principle has always been upheld.
Q. According to multiple media reports, former Cuban President Fidel Castro said that brutal military alliance has become the “most perfidious instrument of repression the history of humanity has known." What is your take on that?
A. Delegate of Cuba: Revolutionary leader Fidel Castro likened the clear hypocrisy that NATO represented to the Nazi SS. He stated “Many people are astonished when they hear the statements made by some European spokesmen for NATO when they speak with the style and face of the Nazi SS”. In his statement accusing United States of America (USA) and Israel of 'creating ISIS', the late leader was referring to the instability caused due to the 'power vacuum' created in the region, and how it enabled radical extremist organisations, like ISIS, to take over large swathes of land in Iraq and Syria.
Delegate of the Netherlands: If military intervention is indeed considered to be an unacceptable violation of sovereignty, then how do we deal with unbelievable human rights violations that are against every facet of our humanity? One must bear in mind that, firstly, NATO uses military intervention as the last resort. Secondly, NATO intervenes in a nation to prevent escalation of conflict and thereby maintain peace.
Q. What 'affirmative action' do you think should be taken to ensure proper compensation for the victims of NATO-led interventions?
A. Delegate of Cuba: 'Affirmative action' is defined as 'positive discrimination'. That is, providing special privileges and rights to the minority communities in a country. However, when we talk about taking affirmative action on states intervened by a NATO-led military force, we are talking about providing special privileges to an entire population of a country. Two questions arise: firstly, who will be liable to provide reparations for 'affirmative action' and, secondly, how will the resources be procured? The Delegate of Cuba believes that the liability for reparations should lie with the forces participating in the intervention, for they are not providing a service to the people of the state but atoning for their sins committed on those very people. Moreover, the delegate believes that the member states of NATO have more than enough resources to compensate the country destroyed by them several-fold. Take the example of the USA. President Donald Trump has, in his election campaign, promised to increase the military budget two-fold, which, in 2015, already stood at 597 billion USD. The delegate believes that these bourgeoisie member-countries think less about humanity and more about their personal gains from the destruction of a state. Cuba believes that affirmative action should be taken by ensuring a stable government, ensuring peace and stability, providing universal healthcare for the population, providing education and skill-set to the population, and assisting rebuilding of economy and infrastructure.
Delegate of the Netherlands: The Delegate believes that, with respect to affirmative action, there are 3 facets that should be considered: ensuring political stability, maintaining law and order, and providing capacity development. The delegate firmly believes that the entire international community should take responsibility and provide the same.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
The Insecurities of the New World Order
Astha Gupta, reporting from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), talks about the abuse of democracy in the present day.
Plato once said, "Do not expect justice where might is right". What he implied was that a society that sees the mightiest as the most righteous is a society which is biased and unfair. The concept of might being right was prevalent in the society at a time when the concept of democracy was not visualised. It was a time when people were ruled by dictators and kings who were above the law. The society functioned according to the whims of one person. One command of the ruler, and the armies had to be deployed to evade any other kingdom. The one who suffered in such a scenario was the common man. It was he who had to pray for peace, and it was him who had to suffer in times of war, while the Lords and Ladies would sit comfortably in their castles, not sparing a single thought about his plight.
Gradually, public opinion against monarchy and dictatorship started shaping up. More and more people realised that the country should function according to the wishes of the majority. The concept of democracy was finally born. The French Revolution popularised this concept, and the world awakened to a new era of governance.
Decades later, we surely have come a long way, haven't we? Instead of a large group of citizens being dictated by a handful of individuals, we now have a large group of nations being dictated by a handful of nations. Under the pretence of establishing stable governments in areas of conflict, the so-called "superpowers" have installed puppet rulers to further their own agenda. By acting as harbingers of democracy, these nations have managed to create an illusion of free will and choice, thus allowing the masses to believe that they still have a say in the way their country operates.
Let us take the example of Libya. Colonel Gaddafi inherited Libya at a time when it was one of the poorest nations in the African subcontinent. By the time he was killed in 2011, he had transformed the country into one of the most prosperous nations. The onset of the Libyan civil war did show a side of Gaddafi the world had not seen before. The government killed the citizens of its own country in order to suppress the uprisings. This was met with strong opposition by the international community. The situation reached a point where the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was asked to step in, in order to prevent mass killings of the Libyans. Even though the NATO was successful in securing control of the centre of the country, the economical and political situation of the country became even worse. From a successful country, Libya turned into a region marked by conflicts and instability.
Another similar example is that of Republic of Iraq (Iraq). Even though the NATO claimed to be a precursor for democratic institutions, its involvement in the country only brought about the formation of a power vacuum. Not only that, there have been numerous reports of incidents of human rights violations due to the actions of the army. Many innocent civilians have lost their lives due to the negligence of the intervening nations and the regulatory bodies. The irony is that when a United Nations (UN) backed organisation leads to the death of innocent citizens, the incidents are deemed as “unfortunate collateral damage”, instead of mistakes on the part of the nations.
While the smaller nations do blame the super powers for such incidents, there is not much they can do. The United Nations is dominated by mighty nations who can pass resolutions based on their wishes. There is not much that a poorer country can do about it. This makes the countries unable to defend themselves against the actions of the more powerful nations and all they can do is sit hand in hand, agreeing to the directives of the UN.
The writer does believe that, more often than not, the intentions of the intervening nations are right, yet the society, as a whole, needs to speak up against even a single incident of violations of human rights, if present. Until each country gets an equal say in any decision making process, the notion of might being right will continue to dictate the working conditions of the world.
IMAGE SOURCE: http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/humour/
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Plato once said, "Do not expect justice where might is right". What he implied was that a society that sees the mightiest as the most righteous is a society which is biased and unfair. The concept of might being right was prevalent in the society at a time when the concept of democracy was not visualised. It was a time when people were ruled by dictators and kings who were above the law. The society functioned according to the whims of one person. One command of the ruler, and the armies had to be deployed to evade any other kingdom. The one who suffered in such a scenario was the common man. It was he who had to pray for peace, and it was him who had to suffer in times of war, while the Lords and Ladies would sit comfortably in their castles, not sparing a single thought about his plight.
Gradually, public opinion against monarchy and dictatorship started shaping up. More and more people realised that the country should function according to the wishes of the majority. The concept of democracy was finally born. The French Revolution popularised this concept, and the world awakened to a new era of governance.
Decades later, we surely have come a long way, haven't we? Instead of a large group of citizens being dictated by a handful of individuals, we now have a large group of nations being dictated by a handful of nations. Under the pretence of establishing stable governments in areas of conflict, the so-called "superpowers" have installed puppet rulers to further their own agenda. By acting as harbingers of democracy, these nations have managed to create an illusion of free will and choice, thus allowing the masses to believe that they still have a say in the way their country operates.
Let us take the example of Libya. Colonel Gaddafi inherited Libya at a time when it was one of the poorest nations in the African subcontinent. By the time he was killed in 2011, he had transformed the country into one of the most prosperous nations. The onset of the Libyan civil war did show a side of Gaddafi the world had not seen before. The government killed the citizens of its own country in order to suppress the uprisings. This was met with strong opposition by the international community. The situation reached a point where the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was asked to step in, in order to prevent mass killings of the Libyans. Even though the NATO was successful in securing control of the centre of the country, the economical and political situation of the country became even worse. From a successful country, Libya turned into a region marked by conflicts and instability.
Another similar example is that of Republic of Iraq (Iraq). Even though the NATO claimed to be a precursor for democratic institutions, its involvement in the country only brought about the formation of a power vacuum. Not only that, there have been numerous reports of incidents of human rights violations due to the actions of the army. Many innocent civilians have lost their lives due to the negligence of the intervening nations and the regulatory bodies. The irony is that when a United Nations (UN) backed organisation leads to the death of innocent citizens, the incidents are deemed as “unfortunate collateral damage”, instead of mistakes on the part of the nations.
While the smaller nations do blame the super powers for such incidents, there is not much they can do. The United Nations is dominated by mighty nations who can pass resolutions based on their wishes. There is not much that a poorer country can do about it. This makes the countries unable to defend themselves against the actions of the more powerful nations and all they can do is sit hand in hand, agreeing to the directives of the UN.
The writer does believe that, more often than not, the intentions of the intervening nations are right, yet the society, as a whole, needs to speak up against even a single incident of violations of human rights, if present. Until each country gets an equal say in any decision making process, the notion of might being right will continue to dictate the working conditions of the world.
IMAGE SOURCE: http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/humour/
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
Round and Round We Go!
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reporter, Astha Gupta, discusses the proceedings of the council on the topic of framing policies for affirmative action.
After the discussions of agendas like the aftermaths of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-led interventions and what is meant by the term 'affirmative action', it was important the delegates discuss and deliberate on the parameters on which the council should base the new policies on.
The debate began with the Delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, who felt that the policies should be based on the needs of the primary, secondary, and tertiary stakeholders. This was followed by the Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who felt that "a humanitarian intervention often turns into a military intervention", and went on to say that policies should be framed keeping in mind the instability that is created due to the interventions. This notion was supported by the Delegate of the State of Qatar, who suggested the establishment of a body which maintains peace after the military forces are withdrawn.
Voicing a different opinion, the Delegate of Canada stated that there was a "misconception" that the NATO withdraws forces right after intervention. Agreeing to this were the delegates of the United States of America and the Delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands. They felt that the military forces must stay back to maintain peace and stability.
When the Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan talked about organisations that could provide economic aid to the people directly, the Delegate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland retorted by saying that, in such a case, a monitoring body will also be required.
The other delegates brought up issues of development, education, and refugee accommodation while discussing the factors to be kept in mind while devising new policies.
After swirling around the same topics, the delegates proceeded with the similar discussions and debates regarding the agenda which did not seem to head in any direction.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
After the discussions of agendas like the aftermaths of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-led interventions and what is meant by the term 'affirmative action', it was important the delegates discuss and deliberate on the parameters on which the council should base the new policies on.
The debate began with the Delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, who felt that the policies should be based on the needs of the primary, secondary, and tertiary stakeholders. This was followed by the Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who felt that "a humanitarian intervention often turns into a military intervention", and went on to say that policies should be framed keeping in mind the instability that is created due to the interventions. This notion was supported by the Delegate of the State of Qatar, who suggested the establishment of a body which maintains peace after the military forces are withdrawn.
Voicing a different opinion, the Delegate of Canada stated that there was a "misconception" that the NATO withdraws forces right after intervention. Agreeing to this were the delegates of the United States of America and the Delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands. They felt that the military forces must stay back to maintain peace and stability.
When the Delegate of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan talked about organisations that could provide economic aid to the people directly, the Delegate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland retorted by saying that, in such a case, a monitoring body will also be required.
The other delegates brought up issues of development, education, and refugee accommodation while discussing the factors to be kept in mind while devising new policies.
After swirling around the same topics, the delegates proceeded with the similar discussions and debates regarding the agenda which did not seem to head in any direction.
(Edited by Arshish Vania)
MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
Astha Gupta, reporter of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), stumbles across the diary of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) soldier hired to carry out a special mission.
DAY 1
00:00 AM: I have reached Libya successfully as part of a secret operation. Along with me, is a unit of fifty lads who think of me as an ordinary soldier. My aim is to complete the mission assigned to me as soon as possible.
00:30 AM: Libya seems to be in utter distress. I passed through a bunch of young boys who looked at us with fearful eyes. It's such an irony that they fear us even when it is their countrymen who are the real terrorists.
02:00 AM: I am been provided with comfortable accommodation for the night. Sleep eludes me. All I can of is my objective of locating the 'Black Panther' and killing him.
4:00 AM: Received files and documents pertaining to my target. Will spend the next two hours going through them. Seems like a crafty guy, this 'Black Panther'. No wonder he got away with the bombings.
7:00 AM: I am planning to go out in the city in a disguise to uncover more secrets on my target.
2:00 PM: Met with my informer, who has a definite address of my target's hideout. Need to start preparation for the execution of my mission.
7:00 PM: All preparations have been completed. I will be leaving for the hideout spot at midnight. Until then, I am probably going to catch some sleep.
11:45 PM: Leaving for the village where the Black Panther supposedly resides.
DAY 2
8:00 AM: Finally, the day has arrived to which all the years of training at the army add up to. It all comes down to this. In a few moments, I will be inside his hideout, waiting for him to come. And when he does, he should be ready to face the repercussions of his actions.
3:00 PM: Even after hours of waiting, I see no sign of him. I am beginning to question the legitimacy of the information provided to me. Does someone know about my plan to assassinate him? What if he knew that someone was coming for him? Questions like these bother me.
8:00 PM: I have given up hopes on finding him here. Following procedure, I will wait here till midnight. On the outside, I have to stay calm. But, I'm becoming more and more restless with every passing second.
11:00 PM: I hear voices from outside the room. There is more than one person in the room. I shouldn't be caught. I can't fail in this mission.
11:15 PM: There are two people in the room. Through a small crack in the cupboard door, I see the guy: the guy who is responsible for the death of hundreds of people of my country. I can clearly understand what the two of them are talking about. Thank God that I paid attention during the Arabic lessons, instead of relying on a translator.
11:20 PM: I do not like what I hear. My target is pleading the other guy to leave him alone. I recognise the second man now. He has claimed responsibility for many extremist attacks on my country. My blood is boiling, seeing them together. If it were left to me, I would not spare any one of them. They both deserve to die,
11:35 PM: I cannot believe what just happened. This cannot be true. When the second guy was leaving, my target begged him to spare his life. Apparently, all this time, we have been targeting the wrong person. My target is just an innocent civilian who is being used as bait by threatening to kill him and his family. This has been one big mistake, I have been asked to kill an innocent.
11:35 PM: At times, we face dilemmas that confuse us. But, very rarely do we find dilemmas that can decide the course of our lives. If I kill him, the fact that I killed an innocent person will keep haunting me forever. If I let him go, I will be considered a traitor by my country.
11:40 PM: I must take some action. I'm running out of time. What do I do? Should I kill him as I have been ordered? Or should I kill myself instead? What have I gotten myself into? A soldier is supposed to be a brave-heart.
11:55 PM: I think of my wife waiting for me to go back home. I possibly can't leave her alone. My target is in front of me. He must have a family waiting for him too. Oh God. Help me now.
11:57 PM: I have finally reached a decision and I am going to go with it.
12:00 AM: *Gunshot Fired*
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)
DAY 1
00:00 AM: I have reached Libya successfully as part of a secret operation. Along with me, is a unit of fifty lads who think of me as an ordinary soldier. My aim is to complete the mission assigned to me as soon as possible.
00:30 AM: Libya seems to be in utter distress. I passed through a bunch of young boys who looked at us with fearful eyes. It's such an irony that they fear us even when it is their countrymen who are the real terrorists.
02:00 AM: I am been provided with comfortable accommodation for the night. Sleep eludes me. All I can of is my objective of locating the 'Black Panther' and killing him.
4:00 AM: Received files and documents pertaining to my target. Will spend the next two hours going through them. Seems like a crafty guy, this 'Black Panther'. No wonder he got away with the bombings.
7:00 AM: I am planning to go out in the city in a disguise to uncover more secrets on my target.
2:00 PM: Met with my informer, who has a definite address of my target's hideout. Need to start preparation for the execution of my mission.
7:00 PM: All preparations have been completed. I will be leaving for the hideout spot at midnight. Until then, I am probably going to catch some sleep.
11:45 PM: Leaving for the village where the Black Panther supposedly resides.
DAY 2
8:00 AM: Finally, the day has arrived to which all the years of training at the army add up to. It all comes down to this. In a few moments, I will be inside his hideout, waiting for him to come. And when he does, he should be ready to face the repercussions of his actions.
3:00 PM: Even after hours of waiting, I see no sign of him. I am beginning to question the legitimacy of the information provided to me. Does someone know about my plan to assassinate him? What if he knew that someone was coming for him? Questions like these bother me.
8:00 PM: I have given up hopes on finding him here. Following procedure, I will wait here till midnight. On the outside, I have to stay calm. But, I'm becoming more and more restless with every passing second.
11:00 PM: I hear voices from outside the room. There is more than one person in the room. I shouldn't be caught. I can't fail in this mission.
11:15 PM: There are two people in the room. Through a small crack in the cupboard door, I see the guy: the guy who is responsible for the death of hundreds of people of my country. I can clearly understand what the two of them are talking about. Thank God that I paid attention during the Arabic lessons, instead of relying on a translator.
11:20 PM: I do not like what I hear. My target is pleading the other guy to leave him alone. I recognise the second man now. He has claimed responsibility for many extremist attacks on my country. My blood is boiling, seeing them together. If it were left to me, I would not spare any one of them. They both deserve to die,
11:35 PM: I cannot believe what just happened. This cannot be true. When the second guy was leaving, my target begged him to spare his life. Apparently, all this time, we have been targeting the wrong person. My target is just an innocent civilian who is being used as bait by threatening to kill him and his family. This has been one big mistake, I have been asked to kill an innocent.
11:35 PM: At times, we face dilemmas that confuse us. But, very rarely do we find dilemmas that can decide the course of our lives. If I kill him, the fact that I killed an innocent person will keep haunting me forever. If I let him go, I will be considered a traitor by my country.
11:40 PM: I must take some action. I'm running out of time. What do I do? Should I kill him as I have been ordered? Or should I kill myself instead? What have I gotten myself into? A soldier is supposed to be a brave-heart.
11:55 PM: I think of my wife waiting for me to go back home. I possibly can't leave her alone. My target is in front of me. He must have a family waiting for him too. Oh God. Help me now.
11:57 PM: I have finally reached a decision and I am going to go with it.
12:00 AM: *Gunshot Fired*
(Edited by Arshish Vania.)