Several of our NGOs have voiced their concerns with what is perceived to be a “Euro-centric” resolution that do not take the levels of society into consideration.
OXFAM admittedly professed its concern with the fact that there are no mention of establishing infrastructure in local and municipal government as well as educating tribes in respective areas.
Greenpeace refused to work a resolution that included unspecific nuclear uses.
Action-aid saw no motions for gender equity therefore left like EURO did not hold the same values.
Out of all the Eastern African countries that are represented, not one has mentioned the constant conflict over access to the Nile River. Ethiopia, North Sudan, South Sudan, Congo, Uganda, and Rwanda are all states affected over the conflict that has Ethiopia and Eritrea up in arms.
These two states have been feuding for decades whether it be relating to ethnic conflict, political regimes, and now water scarcity. The borders of the two are constantly filled with military personnel conducting training and practice as a demonstration of power. While they argue and bicker over the Blue Nile portion of the river, Egypt has not made a stance on its reliance on the Nile River either. While arguing with the Middle East, it seemingly removes itself from the equation of this imperative problem.
It calls to question whether or not any of the listed delegations realize that the Nile is no longer flooding and covering its banks with slit; the nutritious soil makes the Nile River Valley fertile.
Rising sea levels are affecting the river’s delta, emptying the freshwater into the sea. No one is suggesting possible infrastructure to preserve the area. Many of these countries are concerned with desalinization when a 10-liter container of water has been steadily increasing in price over the last 7-10 years.
Ethiopia has vigorously advocating for water preservation due to the increased desertification of the Sub-Saharan region but forgets that the belly of the longest river in the world is in her domain.
North and South Sudan have forgotten that their ethnic conflict has not allowed for prosperous climate discussion. As a newly divided state, either has the footing to hold to any resolution passed that does not provide amply guidance or funding.
Congo has stated that desertification has a paramount influence on not only its climate but its economy, however; for desertification to slow, soil must be used. Without vegetation in soils that are susceptible to such a damaging process, the Sub-Sahara will simply be the Sahara.
Rwanda and Uganda championed sanitation methods and best practices without mentioning the bodies of freshwater that their populations use the most. Its concerning seeing that both of these countries have been suffering through drought, famine and fruitless harvests as well as a rise in malnutrition and spread of disease.
The largest, quite arguably, most vulnerable asset in this region is virtually forgotten. The biodiversity provided by the Nile River is will no longer exist. The livelihood of these countries and the vitality of their people are at risk due to the willful ignorance of the representatives present.
AMRO- Yes- Care International Maybe-Greenpeace, Action Aid, Mercy Corps, Greenpeace
WPRO- Yes- Greenpeace Maybe-Action Aid, Mercy Corps, Greenpeace Maybe- Practical Action No-UNICEF
AFRO- Yes- Practical Action, Bill and Melinda Gates, Mercy Corps, UNICEF Maybe-Greenpeace
EURO- Yes- Practical Action, Care International Maybe- No- Action Aid
EMRO- Yes- Maybe- UNICEF, Greenpeace, Mercy Corps
Before lunch, SEARO was given a crisis update that notified the committee that the state of the Maldives has flooded. Up to eighty percent of the country is submerged in water and has not received aid from its neighboring countries. After much observation and realization that the region is at risk for much more flooding, the committee moved to an unmoderated caucus to discuss preventative measures.
To the despair of the delegate of the Maldives, no one mentioned how to aid the small island nation. As she attempted to voice her opinion and distress, the committee tuned a blind eye and the chairs saw no reason to direct attention to the issue at hand.
Granted climate change is an issue that effects the entire world, one can’t help but wonder if SEARO realizes the image it has created for itself. Casting a fellow country and its people aside is not the image one should portray when NGOS have stated that their goals and agendas are community oriented.
Maldives implores its neighbors for aid and assistance. “It’s likely that many island nations and smaller coastal nations are likely to disappear over time. It’s a shame that the possibility is that high”, she stresses.
The policies and possible solutions that the Maldives had originally felt that mangrove restoration projects are the first step to protecting the state’s shoreline from erosion.
In addition, the Maldives suffers from destruction of the coral reef in the area; the bleaching of coral has reached 60 percent and they have started to fall apart.
Several of the smaller states have not been able to voice their concerns due to the committee’s lackluster debate on who is economically responsible for propping up its neighbor. Singapore stated that being forced to provide aid is impossible because of rights to national sovereignty.
On the other hand, India and China have been arguing back and forth over who’s more economically advanced while North Korea is sitting the background attempting to change the topic to new energy capabilities, specifically, civic nuclear energy.
Due to the damage created, Maldives is unable to allocate funds outside of its domestic realm. With 80 percent of its land, infrastructure, and population damaged or displaced, it is unlikely that the Maldives will return to a state of normalcy without international aid.
Hopefully, the power play can be put aside so that states like the Maldives can gain the aid necessary to preserve life.
See video here:
- Greenpeace is on the fence with AMRO
- CARE INTL has stated that AFRO has not met its requirements to meet funding
- UNICEF states that AMRO has the most attractive resolutions
- Rockefeller Foundation has stated that EURO is most likely to sustain self-reliant climate aware communities, therefore, EURO is most likely to receive a seal
- OXFAM is not standing with EURO, pro-SEARO and AMRO, on the fence for EMRO and AFRO
- ACTION AID is not leaning toward EURO but looks favorably on EMRO, AFRO, SEARO
Fox news reporting from AMWHO 2017.
Early this morning, Fox News reporters asked Greenpeace about the top three elements they would like to see incorporated into the AMWHO resolutions.
Their first priority is eliminating GMOs from agricultural practices. They believe that these are not a natural process for how plants grow and harmful to the biodiversity of regions. This is somewhat perplexing considering the world’s increasing food needs. Through scientific innovation in developing GMO crops, we will be able generate strains that will tolerate heat, drought, and disease. GMO crops will be essential to feed a growing global population (9 billion by 2050). Increased crop yields support the hardworking farmers generating these products.
Greenpeace’s second priority is opposition of nuclear weapons – they hope to campaign for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East and countries in Northern Africa. In response to this, Fox pressed for their opinions on President Trump’s recent decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal and add sanctions to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (goo.gl/Rywuya). Greenpeace opposed US pulling out of the nuclear deal, citing that it would have negative impacts on the climate, stating that there was nothing good about the decision in general. This position raises questions about their ultimate mission to “ensure peace”. How can we allow any leniency for Iran that would eventually allow them develop nuclear weapons? Our president has asserted that “Iran is not living up to the spirit of the deal”, citing that international inspectors have been intimidated and that limits for advanced centrifuges and heavy-water have been reached.
Finally, Greenpeace hopes to campaign for greater sources of alternative energy including wind and solar power. When pressed about the high up-front cost about these programs, the representative responded with an unclear and idealistic figure, stating that they could investments in renewable energy could “increase profits by 80%”.
For developing nations? For countries in which the sun shines only half the year?
(Looking at you Norway.)
And profits for who? For a select few private companies? What makes Greenpeace think that countries should pick and choose which companies should thrive versus which should fail.
Finally, Fox would like to question what makes Greenpeace’s concerns relevant to the mission and scope of AMWHO. Greenpeace cited the environmental consequence of air pollution in China – describing how the poor air quality there leads to greater health risks and premature deaths. It remains unclear how GMOs and nuclear power tie into this consequence.