![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/pdf.png)
Chapter 10-jessiewu.pdf |
![]()
![]()
The debate was initially a bit flat at the beginning due to the unfamiliarities for the debating procedure and style, despite of the rubric. However, as more and more questions were raised on each individual’s method in explaining their arguments, their arguments became clearer. The strongest emphasis on the weakness of the debtors were the lack of reason-evidence-analysis method, in which most skipped evidence and was unable to provide an in-depth explanation. For the opposition side, it was understandable for them to be caught unexpected of debating due to the absence of 2 of the debaters. As a judge, I was able to see what the strengths and weaknesses were. However, there were occasional confusions over whether I should or should not be reminding the debtors that they can not bring up new arguments and not take heed of it.
I believed that I have to be less lenient at some time and that when questioning both sides I should prepare in advance and at a faster speed. Sometimes when taking notes of the debate I am not able to create a question as fast. My strengths were that i was able to take several detailed notes, so it was easier for me to refer back to my notes when questioning and determining the winning side. However, one of the weaknesses I had in debate was that I was finding it hard to determine the winning side because of weightings in the evidence, speaking, and critical thinking skills. I would like to improve on developing faster note and not just asking questioning that were concerning on clarifying or providing evidence to the statement. Taking faster notes can give me more time to develop questions and I can create abbreviations to shorten the time I need to write. The proposition side was a better debater despite the initial lack of evidence at the beginning. In the end, the concluding side provided a better evidence with the mention of the beef but would’ve done better if the didn’t bring up a new argument and placed it at the beginning of their speeches. The opposition side had a strong 2nd rebuttal and the conclusion, but in the 2nd rebuttal it was mainly adding on to the 1st speaker so not many persuasive arguments were made. I believe for the opposition side, they provided a better argument when using the argument on trying to reduce monopolies amongst copyrights and especially for medical uses. However, it would be better to provide evidence for that. The proposition had a good argument on trying to explain how the evidence of beef and support their final conclusion and rebuttal, However, when explaining and analysing using the evidence of imported and exported beef, the speaker added more arguments in their which had to be disregarded seeing as it is a new argument for the side. The weakest argument for the proposition side was the argument on exploitations in foreign country once they’ve signed the TPP because it was only stated and wasn’t given enough examples or evidences to analyse. The opposition side’s weakest argument was the copyright infringements because the TPP itself has excluded China amongst its signatures but when asked upon it the speaker wasn’t able to explain. I think Taiwan should hold the interest in joining the TPP because of the exclusion of China amongst the trading agreement. Despite the fact that some have state the United States may hold the capability to monopolise the entire Asian market, Taiwan holds on the of the top reserves in the world so Taiwan would not be severely jeopardised by the United States’s plan to monopolise the markets in the TPP. With China’s exclusion from the TPP can allow Taiwan to be able to advance more in the markets with bigger countries and allowing it to progress more and more. China’s monopoly in Asia has not allowed Taiwan to rise our of China’s shadow and not being constricted in any way, which is why Taiwan should join the TPP. ![]()
![]()
In MUN, we often call for the authorization of movilizing peacekeepers to conflict zones. UN peacekeepers have been expected to be at conflict-zones helping civilians and getting rid of conflicts with their wave of their wands. However, the reality of even mobilizng peacekeepers is difficult and causes speculation and disputes throughout the years. In the past, conflict zones were more simple as countries declare wars prior to WWII. However, no country has ever declared war since WWII, making conflict zones harder to identify. The authorization of UN peacekeepers are reviewed thoroughly, and because of previous misconducts of the UN peacekeepers, it is harder to get access. Recently, scandals of the abuse and corrupt conducts of peacekeeping missions — especially in Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Kosovo — has raised speculations on the power given to UN peacekeepers. These acts have jeopardised the credibilities of the peacekeeping missions, seeing that their mission was to do good, instead of harm in conflict or post-conflict zones. Most recently, the Central African Republic peacekeepers have been found to be guilty of committing sexual abuses amongst women and minors. With their committed crimes, it leaves host countries doubting whether they should consent to allowing peacekeepers within their own country. This leaves more and more countries in speculation of whether to allow peacekeepers. Moreover, peacekeeping has been harder to be effective due to the countries providing little support to support the peacekeepers. In July 1995, during the end of Bosnia’s 1992-1995 war, Bosnian Serb forces invaded the eastern Srebrenica enclave and executed 8,000 Muslim males. Previously, the UN declared the area as a “safe zone”, to be free from any attack or any other hostile act.” As the attacks happened, the Bosnian Muslim fighters requested the UN for their surrendered weapons (one of the requirements when creating the “safe area”) to be returned. Despite the Serb forces continuously shelling Srebrenica, their request was refused, leaving them armless. The Dutch peacekeepers were only authorized to observe the situation, and did nothing when the massacres occurred. The Rwanda genocide was another example of how the UN were unable to provide help to the conflict-zones. Resulting in highest massacre in such a short amount of time. The previous failures cause countries to doubt the skill of UN peacekeeping. Which is why it is not always easy to just authorizing the UN peacekeepers in action. Furthermore, the veto power of the P5 nations may also interfere in the non-P5 nation's wishes. With these in mind, it is not always easy to ask the United Nations for peacekeepers and fully expect them to solve the issues overnight. ![]()
Explain events or phenomena from multiple perspectives: British Labour Party on UK Air Strikes12/5/2015 Most recently, the British Parliament has authorized UK to take action in implementing airstrikes against IS. After a 10-hour debate, the vote was 397 votes for and 223 votes against. There was a total of 66 members of Parliament (MP) that supported David Cameron's, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, proposal and 153 Labour Party MPs voting against. However, the labour party was considered to be strongly divided.
Although those who supported the airstrikes were outnumbered by 87 votes within their party, the 66 votes consisted 29% of the seats in Parliament. Those that voted for the airstrikes claimed to do so in order to "confront the evil (IS)", which was strongly supported by Hilary Benn of the Labour Party. While those that voted against, mainly voiced by the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, claimed that this would "almost inevitably" result in the deaths of innocent people and that there wasn't enough evidence provided that would give the UK a motivation to stop IS. Corbyn does not wish to be in favor of the airstrikes in fear of repeating Iraq and Libya all over again. Although Corbyn's party is not the current leading party, the Conservatives. He is in fear that the public opinion of going launching airstrikes against IS would be negative. As previously, during the War on Terror in 2001, the Prime Minister during the time was Tony Blair. He had one of the highest public approval of 93% and was a fervent supporter of Bush's foreign policy. However, he continued his support on the controversial invasion and resulted in a high number of oppositions. Afterwards, Blair's approval rate dropped and resulted a huge loss in seats for the Labour Party in the following term, and for the Conservative party to win later on. Because of the previous past of choosing to intervene, and with the British government screening information only to those relating Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda, it has helped promoted the rise of ISIS during the Iraq War. Tony Blair admitted to these mistakes as well. The Labour Party does not wish to full on support the strikes in order to secure a higher public approval. If the public were to disapprove of the act, it would first blame the leading party, since they hold the most amount of seats. However, if the Labour Party were to full on support this, then the party would lose seats to other parties as well. Furthermore, the rise of right-wing parties, such as UKIP, is a concern over the rise of refugees in Europe. Which was why the Labour Party did not have such a majority voting for the airstrikes, in order to protect their own party's seats in the Parliament. ![]()
Some of the cases of armed conflict in Africa mentioned in class, is the genocide in the Central African Republic. In 2012, Central African Republic (CAR) had a civil war between the Seleka rebel forces and the government. In the end, the Seleka was able to overthrow the president and replace him with Muslim leader Michel Djotodia. After the successful revolution, Djotodia disbanded the rebel forces throughout CAR. This showed civil war, a type of war, within the country. The war then led on to a guerrilla warfare.
The Seleka mostly consisted of Muslim militias, mercenaries, gang members. However, after the disbandment, raids and attacks were reported in villages and most of them were targeting Christian civilians. As the assaults carried on, the Christian civilians were defending themselves by forming the anti-Balaka, Christian militias. The hatred between the two groups gradually escalated to a genocide that fought due to different ideologies and religious conflict. The Seleka and the anti-Balaka soon started launching killings against each other, mostly targeting civilians. Not only were there massacres, there had been domestic and sexual violence, and even reports of cannibalism. These massacres and abuses had severely violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There has been reports of child soldiers, rape, torture, illegal killings, secret abductions…etc, being conducted through both sides of the conflicts. The actions mentioned above are all violations against UDHR. However, the biggest violation that was made was the massacres in the villages. The Seleka rebel forces raided Christian communities and the anti-Balaka charged into Muslim villages and started killing upon arrival. It discriminates toward a person’s religion and also restricts a person’s freedom. These acts indicate religious conflict because both groups targeted the other due to their difference in religion. Weapons such as machetes and shotguns were used to kill these civilians. The forces killed children, women, men, elders..etc, through gruesome methods. Although actions had been made concerning about the issue in the Central African Republic, the soldiers and peacekeepers were not able to stop these killings, according to Human Rights Watch. Besides not being capable to effectively eliminate the problem, peacekeepers has been abusing their power by being related to disappearances of families. The UN has been placing peacekeepers and the conflict is shifting to becoming a genocide. France, US, and the UK had also deployed troops. The EU also called banned any arms trade with the Central African Republic. The African Union deployed troops had played a more active role due to the similar Rwanda genocide of civilians killing civilians without mercy. Despite these actions, the conflict is still escalating. Another factor of why the conflict was prolonged was that when the crisis initial started, major countries decided to first evacuate their own citizens instead of trying to stop the killings at once. Other reasons that the Central African Republic hadn’t received much humanitarian aid was because the country’s conflict isn’t well known. The country lacks interest for countries to intervene, unlike the Iraq War, in which the US were interested in invading Iraq due to their abundance in oil. However, in this case, there were not many interests in the Central African Republic. News and media hadn’t covered much about the country’s issue because of the danger escalating. Problems that may occur when securing the area, would be the difficulty to identify the “good” and “bad”. Since most of the people conducting the attacks are armed civilian mobs, and the only difference between the two sides are the religion they follow. Which is why trying to find out who is responsible for each killing may be difficult. It was a conduct of guerrilla warfare due to the fighters being hidden among the village, and no specific unity was involved to easily identify the enemy. The conflict in Central African Republic is escalating, and we should all be trying to stop it despite our national interests and sovereignty. These are massacres against their own people, including women and children. Despite countries had already deployed some of the troops, they only gave them a minimal amount. Countries right now should put aside national sovereignty, and stop these murders being conducted day by day. If plans of stopping this conflict earlier, it wouldn’t had been so severe. Both sides had committed wrongs and should both be punished of crimes they had violated. |
ArchivesCategories |