The Official Newspaper of MEDI.MUN

Dear Readers,

It is with overwhelming sentimentality that we present to you the last printed issue of Medinews for this year. Ten years after the establishment of MEDI.MUN as an annual Conference, we are proud to digitalise ourselves in an attempt to match the pace of the ceaseless technological evolution. Acknowledging the need for consistent and uninterrupted information, the live-update feature developed on our very own Mediblog will quench the delegates’ thirst of knowing everything that happens, the moment it happens.

In a world where increasingly more problems come to puzzle humanity; from the spread of the Zika virus to the tenacious declining economic situation that plagues countries worldwide, it is unequivocal that we need inquisitive thinkers who dare to find solutions to what afflicts us. We need young minds that think

outside the box. We need young minds that have the initiative and resourcefulness to overcome these obstacles that are, and will continue to be a burden for future generations until something is done. We need to become doers, not just thinkers; warriors, not worriers.

We hope that these words will stay with you forever, and that you will keep fighting like the true warriors you are. Make the best of the Conference and enjoy your time!

Let the 11th Annual MEDI.MUN Conference begin!

Your Editors,Marina Economidou,Marina Leonidou &Vasilis Odysseos

MEDI.MUN Opening issue 5th February 2016

MEDINEWS

The Team: Marina Economidou - EditorMarina Leonidou – EditorVasilis Odysseos - EditorYiota Krashia- Technical EditorReporters:Sophia ArchontisVasiliki AspriLaura BradyErica ChristofiConstantina CoureaAnastasia Irene HadjiantoniouIoanna HadjigeorgiouEleana KasoulideOrestis MichaelidesChristos StavrouEleni Tserioti

ContentsReport on GA1 2Report on GA2 2Report on GA3 3Report on GA4 3Report on Security Council 4Report on Special Event 4Report on G20 5NASA’s shocking late discovery: Does

burning fossil fuels actually cool the planet? 6

Does being a vegetarian really have an impact on the environment? 6

Post revolutionary societies 7The Situation in Yemen 7Passive Terrorism 8Staying together in a time

of need 8Artificial Intelligence: necessary

evolution or terrifying hazard? 9Gun Rights vs Gun Control 9Quotes of Special Event’s prominent

figures and what they reveal 10Chair Interviews 11G20 Quotes of the day 11

Upon entering SB17, I was immediately hit by a brisk vibe. A hive of activity. Delegates

full of excitement and anxiety wandered uncertainly in the room. Some confident and courageous, most extremely nervous, they took their seats, oblivious to what was to come. I could not help but notice the thought and consideration everyone put into choosing their finest clothes for such a special occasion. Everyone ‘dressed to impress’. Their outfits echoed solemnity but restlessness was written all over their gestures. The only murmuring and laughter perceived in the room came from the few who had been in this position in the past.

The two chairs, Jida Akil and Mehmet Göksu, warmly welcomed the delegates with smiles on their faces. Conscious of the fact that most of the delegates were strangers to each other, the chairs started the long and busy morning with a fun game, in order to get rid of the tension in the room and get everyone feisty. The delegates were instructed to stand up and present themselves to the rest of the group, by stating their name, age, delegation and one fun fact about themselves. Giggling in

awkwardness, many of them admitted their anxiousness caused by their inexperience, while others caused chaos and divide in the room by affirming ‘preposterous’ statements such as: “I don’t like Nutella”.

After the first ice breaker, whose purpose was for the delegates to get to know each other better, the second ice breaker followed a similar route as it required hurrying around the room and detecting someone who matched a single fact written in the document. The chairs presented it as Human Bingo and whoever managed to concentrate ten people who matched the facts written on the screen first, such as someone who speaks three languages or someone who loves sushi, would win the game. There was a flurry of excitement as enthusiastic delegates hastened frantically trying to find a person who matched a fact. There was boisterous noise engulfing the room and warm smiles began to be traded between the eager delegates, blending with the enthusiasm that had effectively overwhelmed the room.

Photographers tried to timidly sneak into the room being as quite as possible but as soon as the door slammed behind them, everyone was aware of their presence. Even

though the delegates tried to ignore the cameras and look straight ahead, my eye caught quite a few of them surreptitiously fixing their hair and readjusting their clothes. After the wave of excitement died down when the last break was over, it was time to get down to business which included the debates. Initially a sample debate was presented which naturally resulted in roars of laughter as silly mistakes were made on purpose in order to demonstrate the correct structure of a debate. “It lacks further development, therefore it’s crap!” one delegate exclaimed and the rest of the room guffawed noisily. When at last the workshop drew to a close, delegates unhurriedly got up to leave, pleased with the fun and simultaneously productive day they had all experienced.

Report on GA2Constantina Courea

It is the morning of the 12th November, and the tentative delegates are welcomed to the

workshop by their chairs, Aliosha Bielenberg and Emilios Hadjiandreou. I situate myself at the back of the room, my eagle eye trained on the crowd, fingers poised over my keyboard, ready to take notes.

After a long and arduous roll call, the delegates start off with two energizing icebreakers, serving the purpose of making people more comfortable with the near-strangers sitting next to them. Soon, the buzz and chatter of excited voices seems to fill the room, and it is not long before I hear the anguished voices of the chairs pleading the delegates to settle ringing out amidst cries of “I like your hair!” and “I’m wearing pink underwear today!”

The delegates immediately hush, and an air of relaxed confidence has replaced their cautiousness and fear. The presentation begins, with the chairs good-naturedly explaining the history of MEDI.MUN and its benefits, encouraging the

delegates to branch out and make new friends (cue people turning to each other and grinning). The addition of GA4, G20 is addressed: the number of applications was so large this year that they decided to expand the Conference further!

After a break to recharge and refuel, the delegates and I are graciously welcomed back by Boney M’s Rasputin, with any latecomers being encouraged to dance at the front of the room as ‘punishment’.

The process of debating is then explained, with Aliosha and Emilios carefully outlining rules and regulations, informing the delegates about key words and definitions, the structure they should use when writing resolutions, and the steps they should follow. The Chairs then interrupt the furious note-taking by stating that all the presentations will be available on the MEDI.MUN website; something which causes the room to fill with groans and exasperated giggles.

A second break takes place where we all stock up on coffee, cheese pies, and selfies, getting ready for the ‘mock debate’ that is

about to take place. We return to our sanctuary and, as

I witness the debate simulation, I find myself to be constantly in awe of the professionalism and seriousness that seems to have replaced the loose chatter of before. In the debate, the UK delegate states his resolution, one that is seconded by the delegate of Chad and countered by the delegates of Cambodia and Mexico. The simulation is peppered with Points of Information from other delegates and reminders from the Chairs, with the resolution ultimately being voted against and, thus, not passed.

And, just like that, the day is over. The buzz of young voices fills the air once more as the delegates rise and stretch and make their ways home, promising to see each other again before February.

Report on GA1Sophia Archontis

MEDINEWS 2016 2

As soon as registration was over, the day started with an ice breaker. M&Ms were given to

delegates, who were then asked to state one fact about themselves for each M&M they had taken. The most popular fact, unsurprisingly, was that “when I grow up I want to be a lawyer” and the most interesting one was “who inspires me the most is the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin”. The latter was met with widespread exclamations of wonder and surprise.

The General Assembly continued with a briefing on the history of MEDI.MUN and an introduction to how the Conference works and what the role is of each committee is. Some delegates, being their first time participating in a MEDI.MUN conference, watched the presentation with particular attention and made sure that they kept note of what was being said. The presentation proceeded with a guide on how to write resolutions,

with emphasis on how to research details about a country, including its history, political state, cultural state, economy and geography. These were quite important tips for the delegates, who hurried to write down every detail they could in preparation for their first, big conference in February.

The presentation moved forward with an interesting set of instructions on how to make allies, as well as how debating should be carried out. The procedures of open debate, points of personal information, points of personal privilege and points of order were thoroughly explained to the audience of first time participants, who seemed quite surprise by the very idea of having points of privilege. The instructions were clearly read by the Chairs, who paid particular attention to the fact that every single delegate had understood everything before they moved on.

Common phrases such as “the house will come to order” were read out to the

delegates in an effort to inform them as best as possible on how procedures are carried out. The delegates seemed to have understood these points and the Chairs seemed delighted as having to explain these procedures over and over again in the actual conference only results in wasting valuable time.

A mock debate was carried out where resolutions were read out by delegates, followed by defense speeches and points of information by other delegates. The resolutions were passionately read out while the other delegates paid close attention to them in order to pick out any possible weaknesses of those resolutions. It was then time to end the day with promises to continue in the same enthusiastic fashion in February.

Report on GA4Christos Stavrou

Entering the room of the General Assembly in their sophisticated suits and

dresses, the delegates took their seats with a sense of restlessness for what was about to happen. The workshop began with a moment of silence as a gesture of respect, to mourn the souls that were lost during the previous day’s terrorist attacks in Paris. The two Chairs, Savvas Marcou and Rafaella Chrysostomou, introduced themselves and started with a little game to break the ice.

With the help of the admin staff, they passed around a big bowl of M&Ms, from which the delegates were allowed to take as many as they wanted. After all the delegates had their M&Ms, the chairs finally revealed the rules. Each delegate had to say as many facts about themselves as the number of M&Ms they took, whether that was one or even twenty. People revealed their interests, their thoughts about the future, even their addictions.

After people became familiar with each other, the presentation regarding some basic knowledge required to participate in MEDI.MUN began.

Surprisingly enough, most of the delegates were taking detailed notes of it. Meanwhile, photographers kept rushing into the room trying to get a sneak peek of what was going on as quietly as they could, but nothing could stop the delegates or the staff even, from posing for a spontaneous photo.

The delegates started enjoying themselves during the first break; something evident by the fact that they forgot to get back on time. This was not overlooked by the Chairs, who kindly asked the delegates to be punctual in the future. The second part of the workshop was a continuation of the presentation, so to liven things up, the Chairs decided to have a UN trivia to challenge the delegates’ knowledge. The trivia was fun and a chocolate was flung across the room for every right answer. Before the second break, there was some available time which was filled with another interesting ice breaker. The delegates were asked to form a line and whoever wanted to, could mention something they liked. Anyone else who also liked that same thing, was to take a step forward.

Apparently a lot of delegates of GA 3 like pizza, but only one of them likes American Horror Story.

In the third and final part of the workshop, a mock debate was presented which deliberately contained some mistakes and things to avoid. Delegates of Palestine, Mexico, Singapore and Cambodia debated the issue of Ebola, with occasionally moments of intense rebuttal arising. After the voting process, however, the motion was passed. The last minutes of the workshop were time left for the delegates to socialise, introducing themselves to other delegates and starting to build bonds for future alliances. As the Chairs previously mentioned during the day, strange alliances like North Korea with South Korea should be avoided, so we hope that we will not be seeing these types of agreements at the Conference!

Overall, the MEDI.MUN 2015 workshop was a great success. Hopefully more memorable moments like these are to come in the actual conference.

Report on GA3Laura Brady and Ioanna Hadjigeorgiou

MEDINEWS 20163

The day began with the arrivals. Smart clothes, intelligent faces, bright smiles toward friends

and strangers alike. Delegates made their way to their respective GAs, where they were met by the welcoming Chairs - and the Special Event was no exception. The Chairs, Michelle Nicolaou, Nearchos Aniliades and Markos Drakos, managed to create a perfectly balanced atmosphere, with equal part warmth and seriousness. The handful of delegates in the Special Event got to know one another through a series of drama-oriented games. Not only did certain delegates die dramatic (yet flawless) deaths, we also had Steve Jobs shoving Miley Cyrus off a hot air balloon. Aspiring astrophysicists, law students and rugby players made up this year’s team.

The delegates were then introduced to the concept surrounding the Special Event and the purpose behind the activities - each of them would soon be assigned a character to represent in February’s Conference. Their task is not an easy one. They have to research their persona’s views on this year’s topics and find a way to perfectly embody this character - be it

mannerisms or speech patterns - by the time the Conference rolls around. During the Conference sudden assassinations may take place, and alliances may form between delegates through the ‘intricate’ medium of note passing (censored of course by the Chairs). Characters were chosen so that they all play a relevant role in today’s global issues, and included personalities like the notorious Donald Trump, the powerful Angela Merkel, and organisational bodies such as NATO.

This year’s Special Event is centred on pressing topics that influence the whole world. With US presidential elections fast approaching, the contrasting views of the Democrat and Republican parties raise questions about the elected party’s attitude toward the country’s foreign policy. Another point of discussion within the debates will be the European refugee crisis. In just the first seven months of 2015, more than 340,000 migrants have arrived in the EU, and while various nations have shown different levels of acceptance toward these political migrants, it still remains a worrying humanitarian problem. The last subject to be discussed by the delegates is

the case of China and its growing economic power in the world market. Having just surpassed the US in economy size, and possessing one of the largest workforces on the planet, it is proving to truly become a force to be reckoned with.

The day quickly came to a close, and delegates were left with newly-formed bonds and the excitement of the upcoming conference, already feeling engrossed in the state of mind of their provided characters. It is safe to say that all appreciated the power and magic of the special event - “you become multicultural and diversify your friend groups”, said one of the delegates. The overall experience only consolidated what Nearchos had said in his introductory speech: “MEDI.MUN is a platform for us to debate important issues in today’s society. It builds up character and gives life skills.” And that is why everyone comes back every year thirsty for more.

Report on Special Event Eleana Kasoulide and Orestis Michaelides

The highly anticipated workshop of the 11th Annual Session of MEDI.MUN arrived and

eager students from across the island came together to constitute this year’s delegation. The delegates quickly moved to their appointed rooms, their zeal and vitality marking the beginning of a promising day. In the Security Council, icebreakers creased the stiff atmosphere, helping the delegates familiarise with each other swiftly. Following a game of ‘Would you rather…?’ the two experienced Chairs – Zoe Kassinis and Nishchay Bhatt – went through the presentation, keeping it fun, and entertaining the delegates with their humorous comments. Time flew by and before anyone knew it, break time came. When the students gathered again after the break, it was time for the mock debate to begin. As part of the disarmament committee, the delegates were called to discuss the measures that need to be taken in order to deal with Sub-Saharan terrorist groups and were given three minutes to read through the resolution, which they did with great concentration.

The delegate of Chad was the first to speak for the resolution, accepting one point of information from the delegate of China. The delegate of Venezuela took up the debate, answering to two points of information, one made by the delegate of Spain and France on clauses 5 and 3 respectively. This marked the end of the debate for the resolution, and the beginning for the debate against it. The delegate of the UK gave a very passionate speech, highlighting that the resolution measures are outdated and weak. The delegate accepted one point of information from Jordan, on clause 2. The delegate of France was up next, pointing out the flaws of the resolution. All throughout the debate, the Chairs helpfully kept pointing out important mistakes and giving the delegates tips on how to improve their speeches.

After the debate against the resolution finished, the delegates got the chance to propose amendments. The delegate of UK stood up and presented an amendment, expanding on clause 5. After a convincing speech, the delegate

accepted two points of information. A speech against the amendment followed, made by the delegate of Chad. It was time for the voting procedure to begin. The amendment proposed passed, with 8 votes for and 4 against, while the resolution did not, with 7 votes against, 4 votes for and 1 abstention. At this point the delegates got the chance to ask any questions they may have had, which were all answered by the two Chairs.

The workshop continued on a lighter note, when the delegates played two rounds of wink murder. The delegate of the UK turned out to be the murderer… twice. The presentation by the Chairs then continued, and the delegates were informed about debating procedures, important terminology and all the available resources they can use from the MEDI.MUN website. The day ended with another fun icebreaker, in which a peculiar shopping list was formed, consisting of islands, houses and –as weird as it may sound- supermarkets.

Report on Security Council Vasiliki Aspri and Anastasia Hadjiantoniou

MEDINEWS 2016 4

The enticing smell of strong coffee together with happy chatter is what hanged

around G20 in the early morning of the workshop. All attendees looked delighted and bubbly, especially the US representative who looked particularly eager to begin work. Unfortunately, one of the two chairs, Andreas Nicolaou was unable to attend so Stelios Fiakkas had to tackle the task of co-ordinating the group alone, something which he seemed very able to do. After introducing himself he moved on to giving the representatives a general overview of this group’s main focal points. Although only 1/5 had never attended the conference before, they all payed particular attention while the chair was speaking.

This assembly is independent of the rest assemblies of MEDI.MUN. There is a lot of new material that needs to be covered, as well as a lot of new procedures to be thoroughly explained. As time proceeds, the specific topics of the agenda are presented by the chair and discussed in detail with all country representatives. Some extended discussions on the economy take place, with distinctive focus on the interdependency between countries and lack of regulations with some reference to policies and their effectiveness, in the context of the discussion.

It is vital to understand that a treaty written by this group is mostly based on thorough research of one’s country as well as other allying nations, so Stelios spends a lot of time and effort providing guidelines on researching a country as well as on some recommended readings which enrich the representatives’ economic arsenal. This soon becomes a joke, as all representatives make fun of Stelios’ enhanced interest and preference towards Bloomberg newspaper, which he persistently promotes. Intimacy begins to develop and humour fills the room.

Everyone was so deeply absorbed in

the discussion that they forgot it was break time… Well truth be told it is Stelios’ watch which was to be blamed for being one hour behind. A short, late break followed and everyone returned to the room refreshed and full of even more caffeine to prepare for the famous icebreakers. The presentation was finished quickly and some concerns of a representative about the conference are discussed while the chair offers solutions. Ice breakers to begin shortly after.

The first was the ‘toilet paper’, where everyone would get a few pieces of toilet paper and had to share a fact about themselves per piece, offering the others a chance to get to know them better and, in most cases, a great dose of hysterical laughter at some spontaneous jokes. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity in this room. Apart from the evident and common interest in economics, there also were people interested in music, robotics, law, horse-riding and also, a 17-year old CEO-yes, of an actual company. Apparently they were not joking when they said this was the group where the best of the best young economists participated.

The second icebreaker called ‘two truths and a lie’ consisted, as the name suggests, of two truths and one lie told by someone, and the rest had to guess which one was false. With that came another round of laughter as the group listened about people who cracked their head open and others who confessed they hated the heat of summer and nature (aka, our chair). Needless to say that by the end of the icebreaker, I knew far too many things about everyone. Before everyone knew it, it was break time again, this time though, the group made it to break on time.

Mock debates followed after the break. Two of the representatives gave short speeches, while Stelios pointed out certain things to be or to not be done. A brief question session took place afterwards and some details

concerning the conference were clarified by the chair who was always willing to assist all representatives in the best possible way. The Bloomberg joke kept going on and on with some representatives joking that the chair must be getting commission. Not long after the questions were posed, it was time to leave. People left in a very different mood than when they came, socializing in small groups on their way to the parking lot, looking a lot more intimate than before and much more relaxed. This reveals yet another dimension of MEDI.MUN; this is not just a formal event. It is first and most importantly a great opportunity to develop social skills and make new friends. “It was a very fruitful, productive and effective morning. All representatives are very cooperative,” says Stelios on his way out, leaving the workshop eager for February’s conference.

Report on G20Erica Christofi

MEDINEWS 20165

Environmentalists have, for a long time, argued that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible

for global warming and have predicted temperature to increase as a result of the high level of carbon dioxide being released. Therefore, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels was seen as crucial in order to tackle the threat of global warming. These major theories have been thrown into doubt after the reveal of NASA’s findings that contradicted every single one of them. NASA has discovered that the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found sulphur-containing aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels, such as diesel - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

While the short-term impact is dwarfed by the longer-term impact of greenhouse gases, these man-made aerosols can reflect sunlight back into space over areas where they are produced.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate. The study found existing models for climate change had been too simplistic and did not account for these factors. The problem with their approach was that it fell way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of all the variables. Only during the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations.

Their study suggested that, despite a global commitment being agreed upon at the recent UN summit on climate

change to cut fossil fuel emissions, global temperatures may continue to rise. This is because while carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols tend to only remain in the atmosphere for a few years.But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded that the lack of taking these factors into account means existing climate change models have underestimated what the future impact on global temperatures will be. It is therefore unknown and will require extensive research to acquire the sufficient knowledge and results in order to determine future changes on global temperature.

NASA’s shocking late discovery: Does burning fossil fuels actually cool the planet?

Constantina Courea

Does being a vegetarian really have an impact on the environment?

Eleni Tserioti

To begin with:

Simple Definition of  vegetarian:  a person who does not eat meat

Full definition of vegetarian:One who believes in or practices

vegetarianism; the practice of consuming a diet that does not include the flesh of animals and is mainly composed of plant parts. Different levels of vegetarians or vegans (eggs  and  dairy  products) show small variations. For example, as widely known as it is, vegans do not eat any food that comes from animals and often also abstain from using animal products (such as leather).According to a vegetarian Times Study in 2013, 7.3 Million Americans alone are vegetarians with an additional 22.8 million following a vegetarian-inclined diet. But truthfully, the question in everyone’s mind is: why do people become vegetarians?

There are 4 main reasons why people would decide to change their diet.

Firstly, many people embrace vegetarianism for the health benefits this lifestyle has to offer. While it is possible for a vegan to be deficient in many important nutrients, most vegans and vegetarians have healthier diets, with a significant

decrease in the levels of cholesterol. Furthermore, there are several ways

in which a vegetarian diet protects the environment. The meat industry being the number one most polluting industry that exists, contributes to global warming by producing vast amounts of methane. Therefore vegetarians are considered eco-friendly! However other vegetarians and vegans choose to adopt a meatless lifestyle simply because they care for animals. Animal cruelty is undoubtedly an issue. Inhumane as it may sound, more than 25 billion animals each year are enslaved in factory farms, only to suffer before they are eventually killed, in ways that would horrify any compassionate person. 

Lastly, global food shortage is another important factor. By feeding plants to animals, and then killing them, results in us using double resources, instead of simply consuming plants. According to ‘The Vegan Society’ more than one-third of the grain grown worldwide used to feed animals could be used to feed starving nations.

Several studies have shown that vegetarians have a much lower risk of becoming obese, developing  diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, raising a vegetarian´s life expectancy. Another

recent study carried out by UK researchers working on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford, found that vegetarians also had a significantly lower overall risk of developing cancer, compared to meat eaters.

I am sure that plenty of you are thinking: is all of this true? Many ‘buts’ are finding their way into your heads. “How do you get all the required nutrients?” and “isn’t a vegetarian diet very unbalanced?” The pros and cons are endless, as are the discussions and debates on the matter.

Personally I believe that being a vegetarian does not depend on whether we as humans are “made” to follow such a diet or if it is our nature and ‘duty’. It is simple the choice of an individual who believes that by doing so, his behaviour will benefit not only the environment and animal kingdom but also himself by being a healthier person with a clearer conscious.

MEDINEWS 2016 6

Yemen is currently facing one of its most severe crises, almost a year after the beginning of the Yemeni civil war. The current Yemeni state was formed in 1990, when the North Arab Republic and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen in the south unified, with Ali Abdullah Saleh governing the newly formed state. In the following years, Saleh was faced with numerous challenges, following the invasion crisis in Kuwait in the same year, food riots in 1992 – which formed a new coalition government – all of which added to the continuous increase in tension. The result was that a short civil war broke out in 1994 from which the southern armed forces emerged defeated.

In 2012, president Saleh was overthrown and his position was taken by Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. President Hadi was challenged three years later by Houthis, allies of Zaidi Shia, who forced Hadi to resign in January and flee Sanaa in February. This came after the Houthis managed to advance and take control of the capital city in 2014. The Yemeni civil war began on the 22nd March, 2015.

Yemen’s security forces are divided - the Southern Separatists and forces are loyal to Mr. Hadi, and Houthi forces fight for Mr. Saleh.

The poorest Arab country has found itself in a devastating conflict. In the first month of fighting, attempts by Saudi related coalitions to crush the Houthis by bombing them, resulted in over two thousand casualties, according to World Health Organisation, while medical care and supplies offered by the International Committee of the Red Cross could not reach the country and were delayed, with agencies calling for a ceasefire so they can offer their valuable yet scarce help to the citizens affected by air strikes. Despite the two-week bombings, the Houthis were not stopped from advancing further into the country.

The consequences are hard to ignore. People across Yemen are forced to live days on end with no electricity, no water and no food. In the already perplexed picture, another terrorist group is added to widen the crisis. Members in Yemen who support the jihadist group Islamic State made their presence felt by claiming responsibility

a number of suicide bombings in Sanaa. The Islamic State organized its first attacks in Yemen in March 2015 - two suicide bombings at Shia mosques in Sanaa in which around 150 people lost their lives. Meanwhile the Houthis had advanced towards the South, forcing president Hadi to flee the city of Aden.

More than a million Yemenis have become refugees, with the UN claiming that the situation in the country is a humanitarian catastrophe. The increasing death toll of unarmed, ordinary citizens is alarming and causes a stir amongst the international relations. In addition, the high levels of terrorist activity as well as the immigrant refugees, both aftermaths of the clashes in Yemen, could lead to a crisis in the surrounding countries. Although the situation in Yemen is under-reported in comparison to other similar conflicts in the Arab countries, it is evident that slowly but steadily its repercussions affect more and more regions. The countries immediately affected are appealing to the UN for solutions, but a political settlement within the country seems to be the only way out of the war.

The Situation in Yemen Vasiliki Aspri

Revolution, or “a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of

a new system” as it is defined, has long been one of the most interesting aspects of all societies across the world. So amidst the issues faced by the current post-revolutionary states following the Arab Spring, let us take a look back into what can be deemed as influential in order to guess and better understand what might lie beyond the current situation.

Perhaps the first modern revolution that springs to mind is the Russian Revolution of 1917, which can be regarded as the most important uprising of the 20th century. Probably the most famous revolution of all, Lenin’s revolution, became the pinpoint for the world to follow. While a world worker’s revolution did not happen in the end, as the Russian communists wanted, the ideas and chaos caused by the one in 1917 continued to ominously

exist in the minds of other big, capitalist states. It is important note, however, that the utopian world that was dreamt of by the Bolsheviks never did happen in the end. Instead, following Lenin’s death, Stalin guided his country towards an authoritarian, totalitarian regime which continues to remind us how evil people can thrive with a power vacuum in place.

Currently, perhaps the biggest lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is that power vacuums do not lead to democracy, but rather more often to the emergence of other, more radicalised groups such as ISIS. The ability of such groups to thrive lies on their ability to influence people using extreme propaganda by reminding them how the Western states got involved in their countries in the first place. It is therefore conclusive, under all evidence, that the controversial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan under the so-called ‘War on Terror’ excuse, can be regarded

as completely ill-minded. Dictators such as Saddam Hussein had at least been in control of the country. While Hussein was a ruthless and inhumane dictator, a rightful invasion to remove him should have been undertaken with an effort to leave no power vacuum behind.

So can we draw a parallel between the two revolutions? While the one involved the succession of a communist regime with an authoritarian dictator, the other involved the succession of a dictator with an extremist group. The parallel is clear however: once the power seat is left empty, the chances of evil rising to power increase by a huge percentage. Let everyone involved be careful next time the same parallels seem to appear.

Post revolutionary societiesChristos Stavrou

MEDINEWS 20167

As terrorism and conflicts become increasingly threatening and frequent, we hear daily on the

news about refugees leaving Syria on boats, searching for a better future for themselves and their families. Several economically powerful countries have attempted to close their borders and have refused to accept any more refugees to protect themselves from any possible terrorist attacks. But how will this affect the people who are coming peacefully to protect their families?

Each day more than four thousand refugees arrive at countries in the Mediterranean on boats made of rubber or even wood, having little or no possessions with them. According to the ‘Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees’ signed in 1950 in a UN General Assembly, with the participation of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), all the countries in the UN have to accept and help refugees which are asking for asylum. However, even though this law was passed, today, some countries are still trying to close their borders to ‘protect themselves’ in case of terrorists who might arrive with the refugees.

Following the latest events in France in November, background checks have been made, showing that one of the Paris terrorists passed through Greece where he arrived on a boat with refugees. This is the main reason why some countries are hesitant in accepting refugees believing that in this way they can eliminate terrorist attacks in the future. But is it right to turn our backs on the people who need our help to survive through this difficult time? Soon the countries that are helping refugees will not be in a position to accept any more due to the fact that a lot of the refugees are not allowed to travel after they arrive in a country,and so they are ‘trapped’ in one country. The most common destinations for the refugees are the countries that are close to Syria, such as Turkey and Greece, so once they arrive there, many of them are not allowed to travel further.

What can happen? The most important thing for the elimination of the terrorist attacks is not rejecting refugees, but making the necessary background checks to make sure that they are not dangerous and providing them with the required papers so that they can travel and settle in a country. Most of the refugees don’t even

have their passports with them, as they have left their country in a hurry in pursuit of safety forthemselves and their families. But unfortunately xenophobia has become stronger because of the latest events, and is pushing us to label certain people and not allowing us to help them because we are told to view them as a potential danger.

In a period of terrorism and conflict we need to accept refugees as they have the same human rights and needs as we do, and not isolate them from the rest of us because “they are not convenient”. As actress and activist Susan Sarandon, who flew to Greece to help, said, “These people should stop being ‘somebody else’ and must become the refugees that we must stand by.”

Staying together in a time of need Ioanna Hadgigeorgiou

Terrorism has been an omnipresent issue throughout history. One of the reasons for

its continuing presence is passive terrorism which has allowed for the prolongation of the issue, and may continue to do so in the future.

Terrorism can be defined as ‘the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’, with types raging from political to structural terrorism. It has various causes including religious pride and beliefs as well as political objectives and ideas. Even though many nations may not engage in it directly, they might be inadvertently allowing its continuation.

Passive terrorism can be defined as ‘an inert or quiescent behaviour towards terrorism; an inaction, non-reaction, non-participation, non-involvement in countering terrorism. Passive terrorism describes a behaviour of general public or government which silently allows the spread or promotion of terrorism by turning a blind eye or tolerating terrorism’.

This is a major contributor in the issue

of terrorism, as it allows terrorist groups to gain support, mainly financial. For example, prior to the 9/11 attack, Al- Qaeda was able to raise money in Germany and receive money from Saudis, with little to no interference by the respective governments. While the governments themselves do not support terrorist groups, their lack of action aids them. Pakistan is also a nation where passive terrorism is particularly prominent despite the fact that the nation has suffered terrorism for years.

Passive terrorism can be dated even further back. In the 1980’s, France allowed Middle Eastern terrorist groups to operate, and until 1997, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a militant group that was based in Sri Lanka, was able to raise money in the UK and Canada.

Unfortunately, passive terrorism is not limited to certain countries only and is perhaps a harder problem to tackle than terrorism itself. And while, due to recent events, the phenomenon has diminished, passive supporters of terrorism still exist.

A complaint often raised after the recent

terrorist attacks, is that Muslims do not speak out against Islamic terrorist groups, making them passive terrorists. The truth is, however, that Muslims all over the world condemned the perpetrators of the Paris attacks shortly after they took place via various social media and expressed their support to all Parisians affected by the attacks, saying that Islam believes in peace and does not condone violence. Additionally, Muslim political and religious leaders have criticised the attacks and shown their disapproval towards violence against civilians.

As terrorism has become a more prominent problem, passive support for it has decreased, as more nations have begun taking action against it and civilians have spoken out more and more on this issue. However, there is still a long way to go before terrorism, both active and passive, fully recedes.

Passive Terrorism Anastasia Hadjiantoniou

MEDINEWS 2016 8

Imagine a world without any laws. Imagine waking up on Christmas day to your father giving you a .44 caliber

gun and enough ammunition to supply a whole army for months. Just imagine…

Gun Laws regulate the sale, possession and use of firearms and ammunition and vary considerably around the world. Some countries such as  Australia, South Korea, the United Kingdom and Germany have strict gun regulations whereas other countries like Yemen, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, and the  United States, allow for greater access. Although these laws are in place, there are still certain loopholes that can be manipulated and worked around, enabling people to gain access to firearms. “We have over 75,000 firearms rules and regulations on the books, and approximately three of them are ever enforced,” explains Dick Metcalf who grew up with a .22 rifle behind the kitchen door and has been shooting since the age of five.

Opponents of any kind of gun restrictions argue that they are meaningless, since criminals by definition do not follow the law, and therefore will not allow gun laws to hamstring

their criminal behaviour. That may be true, but gun violence is not only committed by classic criminals, as recent gun-related tragedies show. Characteristic is the case of a twelve-year-old who took a shotgun out of a musical instrument case and shot and injured two classmates at a middle school in New Mexico. His behaviour would make him a criminal but most likely, his classmates and teachers did not see him as your basic law-breaker. The boy simply had easy access to a gun, without which he would not have been able to cause the damage he has done. This easy accessibility to guns proves how dangerous it is for average civilians to purchase them, claiming they are for “safety purposes”, as they are unexperienced and irresponsible with its use and protection.

Recently multiple shootings have occurred in various parts of the globe, one of the most recent, horrific mass shootings occurring a few months ago in October 2015 in the US state of Oregon, 26-year-old student Christopher Harper-Mercer, opened fire in a hall on the  Umpqua Community College  campus, killing eight students and one teacher and injuring nine others. Mercer then committed

suicide after getting into a brief gunfight with the police. He was allowed to carry a gun simply because he was part of a gun club and the police just overlooked the case because of that. Despite the outpouring of grief and sympathy that followed, though, the very next day the  Senate rejected a bill  to tighten background check requirements on possible purchasers. Although gun control is a major problem in the US, the problem has not been exempted completely from other countries such as the UK. The  Cumbria shooting  was a  killing spree  that occurred in 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history. However, after these shootings the British government recalled the surrender of guns for which owners were compensated.

We must be realistic and come to terms that not every bullet can be stopped, but extreme check-ups should be made as frequently as possible and gun control should be a lot heavier where it is needed. “Why should we do this?” you may ask. Let’s do it for the children of the future and make it much harder for them to be gunned down.

Gun Rights vs Gun ControlLaura Brady

noun: artificial intelligenceThe theory and development of computer

systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.

Artificial intelligence has been a constant, ever-adapting and developing part of our lives for over the past 50-60 years, with scientists, manufacturers and consumers always anxiously awaiting the next technological advancement.

For many years, humans have been fascinated by the abilities and the restrictions of artificial intelligence – who has not imagined what life would be like if we all had a little robot that would perform our mundane, every-day tasks for us? This has led to major technological breakthroughs in the robotics category, especially in the past couple of years.Now stop for a second. Think. Have we gone too far?

There are no limits to human curiosity – we will never be satisfied with what we have, and will always be crying for more and more. Although this has led to numerous important scientific discoveries, it creates an intriguing question: what happens if we’re just too curious? When will we know we have crossed the line?

Take advancements in prosthetics: they are taking place at such a rapid pace that, sooner than we think, amputees will be able to ‘own’ fully functioning prosthetic limbs that they will be able to operate with their own brains and nervous systems, possibly even better than they

would a normal human limb. These mechanical prosthetics could also be controlled via an app called the i-Limb Ultra (built by Scottish company Touch Bionics).

This is good, right? Well, what happens if people choose to start replacing their own, healthy limbs with artificial ones that are deemed to be better? And what about security? Although the i-Limb Ultra can only be installed on phones that have been verified to belong to wearers of that particular bionic arm, we have all seen time and time again how easy it is to hack into a smartphone and control and view its data and information. What happens then?

If we consider this phenomenon on global, political and military scales, the US government is now looking towards unmanned aerial systems or vehicles with multiple nano-drones, that would fly in swarms in order to gather large amounts of intelligence quickly and effectively without putting humans at risk. This could also be employed on battlefields, so that countries could go to war without considering putting their troops’ life at risk.

On one hand, it makes sense: increased use of automation may have tactical benefits, as it would allow faster reaction times to any enemy actions. Unmanned fighters are much more expendable than manned ones, and much more useful: there would be no more worrying about people getting killed in action or getting captured, as valuable information would no longer be at risk. Using a UAS would also save a lot of money, time and effort that would

otherwise go into training fighter pilots. Ground combat would also be subjected

to significant changes with the introduction of unmanned, ground combat vehicles, especially since an army of robots would, again, be more dispensable. Nobody would object if one or two, even thousands were destroyed, because there is a very low risk of any human lives being lost. To put it bluntly, ‘Robots’ are more reliable: they don’t get sick and they don’t need to rest, they don’t mutiny or defect. Robots don’t need counselling, PTSD medication, mental help. Robots always follow orders and they never second guess any decisions. But what happens then?

Governments become greedy. They start using drones and unmanned combat equipment to evade the responsibility of killing enemies and even civilians. It becomes easier and faster to kill and the decision-making process behind taking human lives diminishes, as there is a distinct lack of human judgement present in the battlefield.

We become even more desensitized to murder and destruction, killing becomes just you pressing a button in an air conditioned room, millions of miles away from the front line, rather than a few meters away from your victim, sweaty and shell-shocked, your hand uncertainly touching the trigger. As Russell Brandom very aptly phrased it: “Once death happens by algorithm, what’s the incentive to preserve life?”

Artificial Intelligence: necessary evolution or terrifying hazard? Sophia Archontis

MEDINEWS 20169

Donald Trump“The concept of global warming

was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Donald Trump is known for his absurd controversial comments. The quote above displays his general attitude, raising multiple questions. Trump referring to global warming as a “concept” is bizarre because it disregards compelling scientific evidence supporting its existence. His statement is also very offensive towards China. Does Trump really think the growth of the Chinese economy is such a threat?

Xi Jinping“By the Chinese dream, we seek

to have economic prosperity, national renewal and people’s well-being. The Chinese dream is about peace, development, cooperation and win-win results, and it is connected to the American dream and beautiful dreams of people in other countries.”

Vladimir Putin“Of course, we know that there

have been different opinions on the situation in Syria. By the way, the refugees are not fleeing from Bashar Assad’s regime. They are fleeing from ISIL militants who have seized large territories in Syria and Iraq. People are fleeing from ISIL’s atrocities.”

Hillary Clinton“I do not believe that we should

again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities.”

In general Hilary Clinton has been observed to have Pro-War policies concerning Syria and ISIS, however it seems that her plans do not include deporting any more American troops. In the same speech from which the above quote originates she mentions

air forces being a more logical option.

Ban Ki-Moon(On Syrian refugee crisis) “I appeal

to all governments involved to provide comprehensive responses, expand safe and legal channels of migration and act with humanity, compassion and in accordance with their international obligations.”

Angela Merkel “If Europe fails on the question of

refugees, then it won’t be the Europe we wished for.”

Considering this statement Angela Merkel would maintain a positive attitude towards letting more refugees into Europe unlike other leaders who are claiming that this would have a negative impact on Europe.

Amnesty International“Now more than ever, we must stand

in solidarity with everyone who has suffered violence and war – including refugees. Sealing off Europe’s borders isn’t the answer.”

Jean-Claude Juncker“It is not the refugees responsible

for dividing up refugees – it is the member states. No refugee has an innate right to decide or refuse to be sent to a particular country.”

“It is not the Commission that has failed to deliver, but a number of member states that have failed to deliver on what we need to do.”

Bashar Al-Assad“If you are worried about [the

refugees], stop supporting terrorists. That’s what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.”

“Europe is responsible because it supported terrorism.”

“Can you feel sad for a child’s death in the sea and not for the thousands of children who have been killed by the terrorists in Syria?”

Wang Yi“War does not solve problems.

Violence increases the hatred. The peace talks are appropriate and the only path.”

David Cameron(On the public’s concern toward

new arrivals into the country) “It does complicate it, but if I do my job properly I must try to cut through this complication and explain the bigger picture.”

“There is no number of Syrians you can take that is going to make the crisis go away … But that doesn’t mean you give up, nor should you go for a phony solution of thinking you could team up with Assad to defeat ISIL because that would be self-defeating.”

Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi“Despite the ongoing economic

difficulties Egypt is facing, it continues to offer help to ‘brothers from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea’ and there are five million refugees living in the country, said President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi.” (from Daily News Egypt)

NATO“The impact of [the mid-term

election results] on the US foreign policy room for manoeuvre – and the effect on NATO – can be difficult to predict.”

“Ever since the beginning of the refugee crisis many months ago, NATO has remained on the sidelines, almost indifferent to a problem that has the potential to undermine the stability of some of the countries in Southern Europe.” (CARNEGIE Europe)

Key quotes by the Special Event’s prominent figuresEleana Kasoulide and Orestis Michaelides

MEDINEWS 2016 10

GA1: Aliosha Bielenberg (Heritage)Don’t be afraid of new people and new situations. Carpe diem!

Emilios Hadjiandreou (ES)You must not change or worry for anyone, do it only for yourself. You are who you are. Just continue doing things the way you are doing them. Grab opportunities and drink beer! GA2:Jida Akil (American International)I’d simply say don’t do anything stupid! GA3: Rafaella Chrysostomou (Xenion)Well, it’s kind of embarrassing to say it, but I was a huge One Direction fan, which I’m not right now. So I would tell myself not to obsess over famous people I don’t know and have never met in my life.

Savvas Marcou (ES)I recall myself a bag of nerves, lots of stress, being shy. I would tell myself: just calm down, take it

easy.

GA4:Elizaveta Sokolovskaya (Heritage)Start reading about world affairs, it will be quite useful in a few years.

Andreas Charidemou (ES)Get involved in MEDI.MUN sooner!

Security Council:Zoe Kassinis (ES)I would tell myself to not take things too seriously and remember to enjoy every moment.

Nishchay Bhatt (Falcon)If I called myself 5 years ago... I’d probably tell my future self that I wouldn’t get much taller.

 

Special Event:Michelle Nicolaou (St Mary’s)Don’t whine now. It gets worse.

Nearchos Aniliades (Falcon)I was twelve... I would tell myself to not focus on what people think of me, to be honest with myself,

to not live in the past and to be excited about the future.

Markos Drakos (ES)What would I tell myself? Think twice before making decisions, don’t rush things, focus on what matters, and live your life as you want to.

G20:Stelios Fiakkas (ES)That I had to get my sailing certificate then because I no longer have time for it now!

Chair InterviewsWhat would you say if you called yourself from 5 years ago?

“When I was a kid I thought putting an alarm clock in the fridge would slow down time”

“I want to be a lawyer one day, or you know-when I increase in height”

Maria Polycarpou, Grammar School(on Swiss bonds) “Give us money to

give you less”“You can call me spinach”Andreas Spanashis, Xenion High SchoolStelios: “MEDI.MUN. broadens your

horizons”Andreas Spanashis: “Yes, with the lovely

food”(Danae pretending to be Stelios) “I want

to study economics and I love Bloomberg” Danae Stavrou, English School

“Actually I did play a role once. It was Rapunzel, duh?”

“Three things I love: Maltesers, coffee and speaking”

“Probably the only thing I know in Greek is καμηλοπαρδάλη (giraffe)”

Iryna Finaieva, The Heritage Private School

WHAT IS THE BEST THING ABOUT MEDI.MUN?

“It is informative, it allows you to meet new people all the time and we get to discuss about the global economy”

Stephanie Tanou, GC School

“It allows you to see things from a different point of view and most importantly it gives essential information about the future”

Panayiotis Stavrinou, American Academy Larnaca

G20 Quotes of the dayErica Christofi

MEDINEWS 201611

All of the information, articles and opinions included in this issue are the property of MEDINEWS. No reproduction of any part of this issue is permitted without written

consent from an appropriate authority.Design by Alexander Gamble

Sponsors

MEDINEWS 2016 12