social, cultural & humanitarian committeemichmun/pdf/SocHum.pdf · social, cultural & humanitarian...

social, cultural &humanitarian

committee

t h e u n i v e r s i t y o f m i c h i g a n m o d e l u n i t e d n a t i o n s

U M M U N 2001

The Safe and Ethical Use of Biotechnology .................................................................4

Redefining Torture to Include the Death Penalty ......................................................8

Securing the Right of Education for Women............................................................ 11

Letter from the Crisis Staff ............................................................................................. 16

Position Paper Submission Guidelines ...................................................................... 17

C O N T E N T Sc o n t e n t s

c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n

Joe Brunner, [email protected]

Elizabeth Kluczynski, [email protected]

Angie Mirtipati, [email protected]

Romica Singh, [email protected](734) 913-6931

Kavita Bagga, Assistant [email protected]

[email protected]

http://go.to/ummun.SOCHUM

social, cultural &humanitarian

committeeHi, Delegates!

Thanks for participating in University of Michigan’s Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee for the 2001Model United Nations Conference! I am really excited and eager about the upcoming event, and I hope you are, too,because we have great things in store for you!

The entire SoCHum staff is excited to get to know each and every one of you, but first let me introduce ourselves:My name is Romica Singh, and this is my third year on the SoCHum staff and my first year as Director. I participatedin Model UN in high school, as well as debate and forensics. Currently, I work as a research associate for a professorwho is working for UNIDIR on a project regarding the disarmament of biological and chemical weapons. Also, I’m astudent at the liberal arts college, double majoring in economics and political science. When I graduate this year, I’llbe working for a brief time, and then going to law school (yes, I’m one of those people). You are welcome to talk tome about any of those things!

I am lucky to have a very experienced and motivated staff this year. The Assistant Director is Kavita Bagga, asophomore majoring in economics. Kavita has an amazing record of involvement with Model UN. She participatedin social and cultural committees during all four years of high school. (She was also a delegate at UMMUN when Iwas on staff a couple of years ago, and she was good!) Additionally, during her first year of college, Kavita was on theUMMUN Crisis staff. Kavita is one of the nicest people you’ll ever come across, so feel free to approach her with anyconcerns you have.

In addition, we have two rapporteurs to help us make the committee a huge success this year: Joe Brunner andElizabeth Kluczynski. Joe is the token male of the SoCHum staff for the past, oh, four years I believe, and we’recertainly lucky to have him. He was in the Model UN club in his high school in Cincinnati, and this is his first yearparticipating in college MUN. He is a sophomore double majoring in political science and honors history, and he’sincredibly motivated and knowledgeable. Elizabeth is a freshman at U of M and undecided about her major (similarto the majority of people in her class!), but she has excellent direction and leadership skills. She is also bringing tothe SoCHum staff four years of high school experience with Model UN, mostly with economics background; andnow, she wants to know how much fun the social committees are, so let’s demonstrate that to her!

This year, I’m hoping that your experience on the Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee will leave you withat least two crucial things. First, Model UN should give you a taste of the actual world of politics. We, as students, areso used to the perspective and ideology of the academic notions of political life that it is necessary to balance thatview with the actual difficulties of negotiations, conflicting view points, and weighing of issues necessary for effectivepolitical decision-making. Second, I hope that you will gain understanding and respect for other cultural norms andvalues, and there’s no better way to learn these things than by putting yourself in the character of delegates repre-senting countries worldwide!

I also hope that you will learn a great deal about the topics we have chosen for you (biotechnology, torture, andwomen’s right to education), that you will approach us with any questions or concerns you have, and most impor-tant, that you will have a great time on this committee!

Looking forward to meeting you soon,

Romica Singh, Director

4


AIDING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?ANALYZING THE SAFETY AND ETHICAL USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the international community has found itself in one of the most enigmatic problems in history. On onehand, political institutions must address the problems of world hunger and the consequent malnutrition of millionsof people, and they should be willing to go to great lengths to ensure that every human being is able to exercise theirright to food and their right to survive. However, the novel introduction of biotechnology as a solution to improvesustainable agriculture and thereby reduce mass starvation has significant negative consequences of its own. TheUnited Nations has a duty to take a stance on this issue after due examination of the benefits and costs (quantifiableas well as ethical) of biotechnology.

*Note: Herbicides will be the focus of this discussion, but you are welcome to research and report the impact ofother forms of biotechnology.

HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

The first major application of modern biotechnology is that of herbicides, or crops genetically modified to toleratechemical weed killers. Before its introduction in the twentieth century, farmers controlled weeds with a combinationof physical and mechanical means and through rotations of crops that could control weeds. After World War II,research on chemical warfare produced chemical agents that could be used to control insects that carried malaria,which revolutionized pest control. This effect in turn revolutionized farming and industry organization, as well asspurred pest-control research. In addition to using herbicides, farmers also started to give crops genes that wouldenable them to tolerate or resist toxic effects of herbicides.

In the post-World War II era, farmers have become increasingly dependent on chemical agents to improve theefficiency of their farming. Just in the United States, over six hundred million pounds of herbicides are appliedannually as weed-killers to a variety of crops (especially corn and soy beans), lawns and gardens, plant-killing, andcommercial plantings. The US has one of the most chemical-intensive farming strategies, and other countriesaround the globe, especially in Africa and other less-developed regions, are asking the UN to provide them with suchscientific research to as to combat their fight against hunger.

The United Nations has so far supported the use of biotechnology, especially in the realm of agriculture. Oneresolution passed by the General Assembly last year (A/RES/54/201) defined the UN to play a critical role in promot-ing the sharing of science and technology to support sustainable development. It recognized the need for furtherstudying of the impact of biotechnology on human health and ecosystems, but nonetheless did not stray from itshistoric position of promoting science and development, as defined in the Vienna Programme of Action on Scienceand Technology for Development in 1979 and in Resolution 52/184.

Moreover, in a resolution passed in 1990 (A/RES/45/207), the General Assembly stressed the importance ofscience and technology in the development of agriculture. The UN prioritized an increase of food production and themodernization of agriculture. Thus, the resolution called for the international community “to support scientific andtechnological training and research in developing countries in order to promote sustainable agricultural develop-ment in those countries.” It also stated that is was crucial for countries around the globe to transfer environmentallysound agricultural technologies and to facilitate “a free exchange of information on experience and technologyrelating to food production.” The UN vindicated the position that developing countries should have equal access toadvances in biotechnology and genetic engineering.

5

s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l & h u m a n i t a r i a n c o m m i t t e e

CURRENT STATUS

Current research concerning herbicides has overwhelmingly stressed the negative consequences of the chemicalsto human health and to the environment. The costs associated with herbicides and herbicide-tolerant plants havealso been proven to include social and economic repercussions as well. In response, consumers’ concerns areappropriately growing about pesticides in their food; however, governments have yet to implement a satisfactorysafety program to regulate their use. The frequency and extent of pesticide contamination of food is not fully known,so there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the tolerance levels set by governments (if any) actually protectpublic health.

There are several serious risks associated with herbicides. Using biotechnology has severe repercussions on theecosystem as it has the potential to completely eliminate certain plant species. The effects are thought to be sosevere that Norman Ellstrand, an ecological geneticist at University of California, Riverside, has claimed that, “…Withinten years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so manyproducts being released.”

These toxic chemicals were created with the intention to poison certain plants, and its deadly effects have beenshown to travel to other living beings as well. Herbicides pose a threat to farmers’ health, wildlife, and habitats dueto its pervasiveness. The chemicals have lately been found in traces of our food and groundwater, and some of theseagents are possible carcinogens. The most popular herbicide in use is alachlor, which has been linked to malignanttumors. The risk of cancer is compounded “when certain commercial formulations of a herbicide contain surfactantsthat have a higher toxicity than the active ingredients” (Goldberg, 22).

Some exceptional chemicals possess “acutely toxicity” to animals, and humans have even died from accidental orsuicidal ingestion or skin exposure (Goldberg, 23). The poisons also cause disorders to the central nervous system,behavioral changes, and skin diseases. The chemicals used in agriculture also affect farmers uniquely because of theextent of their exposure. Research has proven that there are chronic health risks for the farmer, especially associatedwith the use of bromoxynil. This chemical causes birth defects in laboratory animals and may pose birth-defect risksfor pesticide mixers, loaders, applicators, and farmers/farmworkers who apply bromoxynil (Goldberg, 28).

Current evidence of the consequences on living beings from using chemicals in agriculture is frightfully negative;but even these experimental results are only an underestimation of the true harms of using biotechnology in farmingbecause of a lack of extensive chronic testing and epidemiological studies.

Regardless of the cataclysmic harms stemming from biotechnology, third world countries have been continuallyrequesting the technology for their aggrandizement. If this spread of information regarding biotechnology in agricul-ture is successful, then the accessibility of herbicide-tolerant crop varieties could start a trend towards bigger andfewer farms. There would be a reduction of the need for mechanical weed control and thereby would enable a givennumber of people to farm more acres with a fixed amount of labor and management.

This effect on farms would further reduce the role of the farmer and increase the role of purchased inputs, such asseeds and herbicides. There would be fewer dollars to support people in agriculture and a consequent social andeconomic decline in rural communities, characterized by depressed median family incomes, high levels of poverty,low education levels, as well as social and economic inequality between ethnic groups. Moreover, there would bea lack of a middle class, which would cause a decline in the quantity and quality of social and commercial services,public education, and local governments.

Specifically for the third world, there would be erosion of genetic diversity of crop and wild plants, which wouldthreaten to displace existing varieties. In some areas, this impact could contribute to the extinction of traditionallandraces and cultivars. Further, herbicide-tolerance genes would be transferred by pollen to nearby weedy-relativesand cause an interbreeding with wild relatives, thereby having the potential to devastate ecosystems worldwide.The spread of herbicides would also cause a further exacerbation of all the aforementioned health and environmen-tal problems, especially considering that government regulation on labeling agricultural chemicals is severely lax.

6


COMMITTEE MISSION

The purpose of Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee’s discourse on this topic is to decide upon a positionthat the United Nations should take in regard to biotechnology, given the new information about the chemicalsagents that is available today. The Committee should engage in a cost-benefit debate on the usage of scientificmethods for agrarian purposes. First, delegates must determine if the harms associated with biotechnology are realor inflationary, and if harms exist, the delegates should judge to what extent the dangers of its use are. This facet ofthe debate can extend not only to agricultural concerns, but also to other damaging consequences and ethicalconcerns regarding biotechnology. Second, the delegates should also question whether the possible benefits ofbiotechnology are significant enough to downplay its costs. Third, the delegates must also evaluate the insurgencyof the world hunger problem as well as consider possible international measures for its reduction. What alternativescan countries employ to better agriculture without biotechnology? Finally, the Committee should weigh the relativeimpacts of food shortage and biotechnology and come to a consensus as to whether the United Nations shouldendorse the use of biotechnology in agriculture or send strong caveats against its use. Last but certainly most crucial,the Committee must propose a plan to aid the medical victims of biotechnology.

QUESTIONS:1. How many people in your country are malnourished? How many people in your country are considered to

be a victim of starvation? (Please find numbers as well as percentages.)2. How does your state’s government respond to the introduction of biotechnology in general? How has it

responded to biotechnology in regard to its use in combating world hunger?3. What UN documents has your country supported in regard to biotechnology? How did your state vote in the

resolutions pertaining to biotechnology? To food supply?4. What are your state’s trading policies like? What restrictions does your government place on international

trade, and how do these measures impact the rate of people in hunger in your country? In other countries?5. How successful has your country been in researching biotechnology? Does your country have biotechnology

available for use if needed? What restrictions does your government enforce in regard to the sharing/dissemination of this information?

6. What does public opinion in your state say about how your people feel about the ethics of using biotechnol-ogy? Does your government’s policies accurately reflect these concerns (if any), or does the governmentdiverge from public opinion? Is it possible that the government is acting out of consideration of the interestsof pharmaceutical companies/ medical organizations?

7. What impact has the use of biotechnology had so far in the areas of health, agriculture, and pharmacy inyour country?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angier, Natalie, “Gene Implant Therapy is Backed for Children with Rare Disease,” New York Times, March 8,1990, p.A1, A15.

Goldberg, Rebecca, et.al., Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest: Herbicide-Tolerant Crops and the Threat to SustainableAgriculture, A Report of the Biotechnology Working Group, March 1990.

Par, Douglas, “Genetic Engineering: Too Good to Go Wrong?” London: Greenpeace, October 1997.

Pollack, Andrew, “Gene Therapy Gets the Go-Ahead,” New York Times, February 14, 1992, p. C1, C4.

Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, “The Human Genome and Human Rights,” A/RES/53/152, March10, 1999.

Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, “Science and Technology for Development,” A/RES/54/201,December 22, 1999.

7


Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, “Food and Agricultural Problems,” A/RES/45/207, April 5, 1991.

Shapiro, Bob, Speech at the Greenpeace Business Conference 1999, followed by Speech by Peter Melchett,Greenpeace, October 6, 1999.

RESEARCH SOURCES

Economic and Social Council, “Education, Science, Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies, Cooperationand Capacity-Building,” Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology, Report of the SecretaryGeneral, E/CN.17/1995/20, March 3, 1995.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural biotechnology in the developing world,Rome: FAO, 1995.

International Atomic Energy Agency, Induced mutations and molecular techniques for crop improvement: pro-ceedings of an International Symposium on the Use of Induced Mutations and Molecular Techniques for CropImprovement, Vienna: IAEA, 1995.

International Atomic Energy Agency, Modern Insect Control: Nuclear Techniques and Biotechnology: proceedingsof the International Symposium on Modern Insect Control, Vienna: IAEA, 1988.

International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear techniques in soil-plant studies for sustainable agriculture andenvironmental preservations: proceedings of an International Symposium on Nuclear and Related Techniquesin Soil-Plant Studies on Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Preservation, Vienna: IAEA, 1995.

Nuclear Techniques and in vitro culture for plant improvement: proceedings of the International Symposiumjointly organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Vienna: IAEA, 1986.

Transnational Corporations in Biotechnology, New York: United Nations, 1998.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Environmentally sound management of biotechnology,Vienna: UNIDO, 1997.

Wenham, J.E., Post-Harvest deterioration of cassava: a biotechnology perspective, Rome: Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations, 1995.

World Health Organization, Strategies for assessing the safety of food produced by biotechnology: report of aJoint FAO/WHO Consultation, Geneva: WHO, 1991.

World Health Organization Office for Europe and United Nations Environment Programme, Carcinogenic, mu-tagenic, and tertogenic marine pollutants: impact on human health and the environment, Houston: Gulf Pub.Co., 1990.

8


REDEFINING TORTURE TO INCLUDE THE DEATH PENALTY

INTRODUCTION

The international community has agreed that cutting off someone’s finger is torture. Cutting off a hand is alsotorture. An arm, a leg, etc. follows the same innate reasoning. Yet, when a government decides to end a person’s lifecompletely, it is defined as a state’s right. Now that we are entering the new millennium, it becomes essential toquestion the position of the United Nations on the issue of the death penalty. Now is the key time to redefine tortureto incorporate the archaic and inhumane practice of executing human beings.

HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

Scholars who have considered the death penalty have formulated six possible reasons for the imposition of thedeath penalty: retribution, deterrence, prevention of repetitive criminal acts, encouragement of guilty pleas andconfessions, eugenics, and economy (Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972)). Each of these premises has beenrejected through empirical evidence, reason, and ethics. For instance, “retribution” justifies why human beingspunish each other, but it in no way implies that any kind of type of punishment is acceptable. Also, the theory ofdeterrence has been rejected on empirical grounds by comparing the murder rates in states that employ the deathpenalty and states that do not. Evidence also shows that murder criminals rarely are repeat offenders, therebydebating the recidivism theory. Moreover, the use of capital punishment to encourage guilty pleas simply precludesthe issuance of a fair trial. In addition, employing the death penalty on the grounds of eugenics has been universallyrejected on moral considerations as well as lack of definitive evidence for the existence of criminal genes. Further-more, death row costs have been shown to exceed the costs of imprisoning a criminal for life, so capital punishmentdoes not release a government from any fiscal strain. Lastly, sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment instead ofdeath row loses nothing tangible; there is actually a gain: the state would never risk putting an innocent person todeath. Therefore, by using this analysis, several countries have rejected employing the death penalty in sentencing;and international organizations, including the United Nations, have been pressured to take a stance against thedeath penalty.

There are three international treatises that select states have signed as a promise to not use the death penalty: apledge made based on the belief that human beings have a right to life, a franchise guaranteed in the UN UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights. First, the Council of Europe has sponsored Protocol number six to the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and this Convention has been ratifiedby thirty-three states. Second, the Organization of American States have composed the Protocol to the AmericanConvention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which six states have ratified. Lastly, forty states havenow ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has beenadopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989. Nonetheless, the UN has not yet taken a position that declares thedeath penalty utterly against international law.

The UN has, however, taken a strong stance against states exercising the death penalty for juveniles. The UnitedNations and the Organization of American States vindicate three major international conventions and covenantsbarring capital punishment for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18. For instance, Article Six of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which has been ratified by one hundred forty states and signedby fifty-nine others) states that, “Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons beloweighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.” Further, Article 37 of the Convention on theRights of the Child asserts, “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment orpunishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed foroffences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” The convention has been ratified by one hundredninety-one states and signed by one hundred forty-one others.

The UN Commission on Human Rights has taken further action through resolution 1982/29, which has beenrenewed by the Economic and Social Council. The Commission has “recommended the appointment of an indi-vidual of recognized international standing as a special rapporteur to submit a comprehensive report to the Commis-

9


sion in regard to summary or arbitrary executions.” In other words, the Special Rapporteur has the duty of reportingto the General Assembly on the status of extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in order for the UN toaddress executions that may be in violation of international standards concerning human rights and the right to life.

CURRENT STATUS

Presently, the majority of countries have abolished the death penalty. Seventy countries have fully abolished thedeath penalty, and thirteen states have abolished the procedure for all but exceptional crimes (such as crimes undermilitary law or crimes committed in exceptional circumstances such as wartime). Additionally, twenty-three coun-tries are considered abolitionist de facto, that is, they have not carried out any executions in the past ten years.

Since 1989, over twenty countries and territories have joined the abolitionist group by outlawing the death penaltyfor either ordinary crimes or all crimes. Yet, despite the growing trend to eliminate the use of the death penalty,several countries still use the punitive measure, and certain states use it to a large extent. Ninety countries areconsidered as retaining the death penalty. Amnesty International (an international human rights organization) hasfound that at least 2,258 prisoners in thirty-seven countries were known to have been executed in 1998 and 4,845persons in seventy-eight countries were known to have received death sentences. (These are only the known cases,but the actual number of executions is probably much higher.)

In 1998, 86 per cent of all known executions took place in China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the USA andIran. Amnesty International has also received hundreds of reports concerning executions in Iraq, but the organiza-tion has been unable to confirm these most of the reports.

Further, there have been continual violations of international treaties that ban executions of juveniles. Since 1990,six countries have put children less then eighteen years of age on death row: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,USA and Yemen. The USA has carried out the most executions of juveniles than any other country: ten out of thenineteen cases since 1990.

The USA has also been indicted for targeting racial minority groups in selecting which criminals are to receive thedeath penalty. These accusations have foundations on statistical evidence that demonstrates a disparate impact onAfrican-Americans, many of whom have been shown to be innocent after their death.

COMMITTEE MISSION

The focus of the Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee should be on the question as to whether the deathpenalty constitutes a violation of human rights, specifically the right to life. The United Nations has already taken astrong stand against the torture of any human being, but the question still remains as to whether capital punishmentfalls into the category of torture. The Committee must first address the (in)decency of the implementation of thedeath penalty and whether valid reasons exist for its use. Second, the delegates should contemplate a position forthe United Nations to take in regard to the death penalty, and possibly set out a plan for a moratorium on the use ofthe death penalty. Third, the Committee must think of enforcement methods: how should the United Nationsrespond to violations of human rights, including state executions of juveniles and of the mentally ill?

QUESTIONS:1. Look at the tables on the SoCHum website (go.to/ummun.SOCHUM). Is your country listed as an abolition-

ist, an abolitionist in practice, or a retentionist?2. How long has your nation been classified as such (in question 1)? What was the date of your last execution?3. What is the public opinion of the people in your country regarding capital punishment?4. Has your country ever used the death penalty against juveniles, the mentally ill, or pregnant women? With

what frequency? How long ago was the execution (if any)?5. What UN documents have your state supported in regard to the abolition of the death penalty? Has you

state signed or ratified these treaties? Are there regional treatises your country has supported that havepromoted the ban of the death penalty?

10


6. If your country is retentionist, what regulations has your country’s government placed on the execution ofcriminals (if any)?

7. If your country is abolitionist, how would you propose a plan to convince other states to follow your samepolicies?

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RESEARCH SOURCES

Amnesty International web site: http://www.amnesty.org

Press Release HR/CN/789, “Commission on Human Rights approves measures on abolition of death penalty,protection of migrant workers, minorities,” April 7, 1997

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, “Preparation of a plan of action for a United Nations decade forhuman rights education, Report of the Secretary-General,” A/49/261, July 18, 1993.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/605/Add.1 andCorr.1)], “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” A/RES/54/156, February4, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/605/Add.1)], “Tortureand other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” A/RES/53/139, March 1, 1999.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/51/619/Add.1)], “Tortureand other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” A/RES/51/86, February 7, 1997.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [with reference to a Main Committee (A/52/L.66)], “United Na-tional International Day in Support of Victims of Torture,” A/RES/52/149, February 18, 1998.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment orpunishment,” A/RES/36/60, January 19, 1982.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, “United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture,” A/RES/36/151, January 28, 1982.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, “International Covenants on Human Rights,” A/RES/54/157, Febru-ary 8, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, “Capital Punishment,” A/RES/36/59, January 19, 1982.

US Supreme Court Decision, Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972).

11


SECURING THE RIGHT OF EDUCATION FOR WOMEN:COMBATING THE GENDER GAP IN EDUCATION TO PROCURE EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES

INTRODUCTION

A plethora of evidence supports the position that the most effective method to ameliorate the status of women inevery society is to increase their education. Raising the literacy levels of females, teaching basic subject matters, andallowing women the opportunity to advance to higher education and positions are the key factors to promoting anegalitarian society. Educating women not only gives females a more equal chance at becoming successful andgaining independence, but there is also a correlation between women’s education levels and lower birth rates, lessviolence against women, less income disparity, and more representation of female interests in government. Yet,even though these basic tenants of the ways states should promote feminism are universally accepted and empiri-cally proven, most countries in the world stray from the formula of educating women. Thus, it is crucial for theUnited Nations to take action in eliminating the disjunction between states’ rhetoric regarding the promotion of anegalitarian society and the failure of states to take proactive measures to secure the education, and hence theequality, of women.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Women’s right to education can be construed in international law through several measures taken by the UnitedNations. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Resolution 217 A) bans discrimination based onsex as well as protects the right to education for all. The right to education can also be found in several other UNdocuments, including in Article XXI in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in theConvention on the Rights of the Child (Resolution 44/25). The United Nations also adopted a separate document toprotect the right of education specifically for women, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimina-tion against Women, which was adopted and open for signature, ratification and accession by the General Assembly(A/RES/34/180) on 18 December 1979 and has its entry into force on September 3, 1981.

Article X of the aforementioned Convention renders that all states must provide equal access to education forwomen by adhering to eight independent provisions delineated by UN: first, states must ensure the same conditionsfor guidance as well as the same access to studies and to diplomas for women. Second, every country must providethe same curricula, examinations, and quality of teaching staff for both sexes. Third, countries must attempt toeliminate all gender discrimination to truly secure the same educational benefits for women. States should act byencouraging coeducation, revising textbooks and school programs, in addition to adopting teaching methods inorder to incorporate notions of gender equality. The other provisions include mandating that all states provide thesame opportunities for scholarships and grants, the same opportunities for continuing/adult education, and thesame opportunities for sports and physical education. Further, all countries must attempt to reduce female drop outrates, and all states should provide access to education on family planning. The Convention calls for these measuresto be taken for people in both rural and urban areas, and that the provision must be implemented for all levels ofeducation.

In order to regulate the process of the implementation of the Convention, the United Nations created (in Article 17of the Convention) the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW hasbecome one of the most influential organizations in securing all rights of women, including the education franchise.

In addition to CEDAW, the United Nations has created a multitude of other organizations relevant to securing thewomen’s right to education. One of the most important of these is the United Nations Development Fund forWomen, which was created on December 12, 1984 by Resolution 39/125. This organization was designed for threeobjectives, one of which is to strengthen women’s economic capacity internationally. The UN also created theInternational Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), which has also played anactive role in women’s economic development through its advanced methods of research and reporting the chang-ing status of women. However, INSTRAW is in a constant struggle for sufficient funding.

12


Although the United Nations has successfully built organizations that have the capacity to radically shift the trendof women being denied the right to education, focus on securing educational rights did not begin to be proactiveuntil 1990. The United Nations declared this year to be the International Literacy Year, the 1990s to be the Interna-tional Literacy Decade, and the UN held the World Conference on Education for All at Jomtien, Thailand. Theseevents in the early 1990s were a turning point for world promotion of the benefits of education and of dynamicmeasures to decrease illiteracy around the globe.

Efforts to promote literacy and raising educational levels continued throughout the latter years of the twentiethcentury and into the new millennium. The International Conference on Adult Education took place in 1997, theFourth World Conference on Women in Beijing: Platform for Action 1995 emphasized education and training ofwomen as well as inclusion of women in the economy, and the International Literacy Day took place on Friday,September 8, 2000 in Washington DC regarding the issue of schooling world-wide and the World Bank’s support forthe Education for All initiative (EFA). The United Nations also held the World Education Forum in April 2000 inSenegal to assess the goals of education, and the General Assembly is planning a special session to promotewomen’s rights in “Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century.”

CURRENT STATUS

From the above historical analysis of UN efforts to promote education for all and the rights of women, one wouldnaturally be surprised to find that out of the 880 million adults illiterate in the world today, two-thirds of that figureare women! In addition, out of the 130 million youth not attending primary school in developing countries, two-thirds are girls. A recent report by the UN Population Fund stated that girls and women all over the world are deniedaccess to education and health care. The UNFPA further implicated its criticism of the lack of education for womenby noting that this gender gap in education is the key influence on every country’s gross national product (GNP). Thereport asserted that just a one- percent increase in female secondary schooling would result in a 0.3 percent in-crease in economic growth.

Despite these shocking figures, women still face discrimination in both subtle and overt forms all over the globe.Overt discrimination exists, for instance, by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. When the militia seized Kabul in1996, it immediately promulgated new laws that prevented women from holding jobs, receiving education and evengoing outside their homes unaccompanied. In South Asia, there is a clear disparate impact on the education ofwomen: even though the region only carries twenty-one percent of the world’s women, it is also the responsible forforty-four percent of the world’s illiterate women. Women’s access to education also lags behind men’s in Africa. Inthe 1990s, the status of African women has in most cases deteriorated instead of ameliorated as was the trendelsewhere in the world, according to the “Abuja Declaration on Participatory Development: The Role of Women inAfrica in the 1990s.” African nations have recently, however, promised higher and technical education and economicempowerment for women. In Latin America, there is a satisfactory rate of girls in secondary education, but theregion has problems with discrimination in the workforce and thus lacks job opportunities for women. Even indeveloped countries, the governments have been accused of not promoting the interests of women in education: forexample, Canada has been severely criticized because many spending cuts hit women the hardest, which is thecause for the March beginning on March 8, 2000, the International Day of Women.

In an attempt to increase women’s access to education, officials of the United Nations have recently questionedwhat other reasons, besides state discrimination, could be a cause for women not in school. One Press Releasestated that the high drop out rates for women in secondary education was attributable to early marriage, pregnancy,sexual harassment and a heavy workload at home. Women also experienced discrimination in certain courses, suchas science and physical/sports education. Moreover, even if women were to obtain an education, they were stillsubject to structural (systemic) discrimination in the labor market and forced to accept lower paying jobs. Globaliza-tion of the international market is another factor that has also had a negative effect on women in the workforce: inmiddle-income countries, labor demand increased for high-skill manufacturing jobs, whereas demand for low-skilled labor (where women workers predominate) has declined. This gender bias in education and in the labormarket has led women to be at the core of poverty worldwide.

Several solutions have recently been suggested for states to address problem of gender privilege in the economic

13


situations of education and of labor. These new theories correctly acknowledge a more integrative approach than inthe past; that is, they address not simply education or not just women, but the intersectional issue of women’s rightto education. There is a call for increased literacy programs for women, free education for women, more scholar-ships for women, and more funding for INSTRAW and other feminist organizations. People also suggest that statesshould work to create more diversified school programs to counter the trend of girls not going into science andinformation technology and to develop the managerial skills of women and girls. Women should be also be edu-cated as to what their rights are, so that they are able to complain of discrimination and use the state’s system ofadjudication. Women should also be taught family planning. Representatives also place special emphasis on ruralwomen: they suggest that states need to guarantee rural women loans and jobs other than agriculture as well assufficient access to books and other material. Another crucial concern, especially for women with low incomes, isthe question of childcare and the state’s responsibility to provide services or at least subsidize these services formothers.

Simply put, women’s right to education has continued to be denied and abridged worldwide, even though promot-ing women’s education is the highest return investment available. Thus, it is not only a moral imperative for theUnited Nations to take action against the discrimination against women, but also an economic imperative.

COMMITTEE MISSION

The objectives for the delegates of the Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee of the UN General Assemblyare multifold. First, the Committee should analyze what the United Nations has done to date and define what islacking from the current system that allows states to continue to neglect the education of females. With this conceptin mind, the next facet of the debate should focus on examining new, more effective methods of educating women:how should states promote education and what role should international organizations and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) play in this respect? What outreach methods should governments take in order to educate theoften-neglected rural areas of their countries? Is promoting quotas for higher education or separate schools forwomen viable options? Should the UN enforce a plan in which a state must achieve a certain percentage increaseof women pursuing education? Once the Committee decides on a method, the third facet of debate should serve todecipher a plan for enforcement. What steps should the United Nations take to ensure that states are adhering tothe plan the Committee sets forth? All three components of the debate over international efforts to educate womenneed to be satisfactorily answered in order to make true progress, and delegates should be reminded that there areno easy answers to any of these questions.

QUESTIONS:1. What is the literacy rate of women in your country? How does this figure compare to the literacy rate of

men?2. What are the percentages of men and women pursuing higher education in your country? Is the rate of

women entering higher education increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? How do you explain thesetrends?

3. What measures has your country taken to promote the education of women? Does your country enforce aquota policy for women in higher education?

4. Are there certain groups who are often neglected in the government’s efforts to increase education, such asrural people, minorities, and/or impoverished people? What increased efforts should the state take to reachthese groups?

5. Has your country supported UN efforts to promote the education of women? What documents had yourstate signed and/or ratified in this regard?

6. What is the overall status of women in your country? You can analyze a response to this question bystudying the representation of women in your country in national and local political decision-making, theconditions of women in the workforce, the position of women in the home, and any cultural traditionsdirected at women. Do you believe that there is a correlation/causation between the amount of womeneducated in your country with the status of women in its entirety?

14


7. What efforts has your country’s government made in regard to childcare? Does your government subsidizecorporations and/or schools to provide mothers with childcare? How are the childcare facilities regulated?How successful have these efforts been in keeping and encouraging the education of mothers?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” United Nations High Commis-

sioner for Human Rights, entry into force September 3, 1981.

“Gender discrimination has steep financial cost: UN report,” Agence France Presse, September 20, 2000.

Gonzalez, Gustavo, “Population-Latin America: Gender Gap Hinders Development,” Inter Press Service, September20, 2000.

Harvey, Bob, “Women’s march will promote ‘feminist dozen’ demands,” Ottawa Citizen, October 12, 2000, p. B7.

“Importance of Education for Achieving Women’s Equality, Development and Peace Stressed in Status of WomenCommission,” Women’s Commission: Press Release WOM/966, 10th Meeting (PM), March 14, 1997.

“Importance of Education of Women Stressed during Anti-Discrimination Committee Meeting on Burkina FasoReports,” Women’s Anti-Discrimination Committee: Press Release WOM/1168, 459th Meeting (PM), January27, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [one the report of the Third Committee (A/51/615)], “The girlchild,” A/RES/51/76, February 20, 1997.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/595)], “A UnitedNations literacy decade: education for all,” A/RES/54/122, January 20, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/598 and Corr. 1 and2)], “Improvement of the situation of women in rural areas,” A/RES/54/135, February 7, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/599 and Corr.1 and2)], “Revitalization and strengthening of the International Research Training Institute for the Advancement ofWomen,” A/RES/54/140, February 10, 2000.

“South Asia puts women into leadership but denies them rights,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, October 19, 2000.

Thorne, Stephen, of the Canadian Press, “Canada slammed on women’s issues,” Calgary Herald, September 21,2000, p. A12.

“World Bank: Education and literacy organization prepare to converge for International Literacy Day,” M2Presswire, September 4, 2000.

RESEARCH SOURCES:

“Afghan refugee repatriation depends on Taliban,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, September 19, 2000.

“Economic and Social Council, continuing general segment of 2000 session, discusses demographic implicationsof gender inequality,” M2 Presswire, July 20, 2000.

“Influential Iranian cleric opposes UN document on women,” Agence France Presse, June 24, 2000.

15


“Investment in Women’s Education, Enforcement of Core Labour Standards Urged as Second Committee Consid-ers Women in Development,” Second Committee (Economical and Financial): Press Release GA/EF/2882,26th Meeting (AM), October 29, 1999.

Lim, Brenda, “Women’s empowerment poser,” New Straits Times (Malaysia), September 27, 2000.

“Nigeria- Bridging the Digital Divide and Improving Access to Education,” White House, Office of the Press Secre-tary, Fact Sheet; M2 Presswire, August 30, 2000.

Peters, Dennis, “Fed: Target gender inequality and improve all lives,” AAP Newsfeed, September 21, 2000.

“Prepared Testimony of Congresswomen Carolyn B. Maloney before the House International Relations Commit-tee: International Efforts to End Discrimination Against Women,” Federal News Service, May 3, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/599 and Corr.1)],“Preparations for the special session…” A/RES/54/142, February 16, 2000.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/54/599 and Corr.1)],“Follow-up to the Fourth World Conference…” A/RES/54/141, February 16, 2000.

“Rights: No real democracy without women, says UNIFEM,” Inter Press Service (Bangkok), July 13, 2000.

“RSC-AP meeting calls for equal access to productive resources,” Malaysia General News, September 26, 2000.

Saikal, Amin, “Australia wants no guff from the United Nations,” International Herald Tribune, Opinion, September5, 2000, p. 8.

Thorne, Stephen, CP, “Canadian Inaction on Women Criticized,” The London Free Press, September 21, 2000, p.A7.

“UN report reveals gender inequality,” Bangkok Post, editorial, September 25, 2000.

“Wisdom is not the monopoly of the few,” The Hindu, October 10, 2000.

“Without vote, Third Committee approves draft text on improving status of women in UN system,” M2 Presswire,October 23, 2000.

16


A LETTER FROM THE CRISIS STAFF

Delegates,

A spectre is haunting UMMUN— the spectre of peace and tranquility. All the powers of the just have entered into anunholy alliance to exorcise this spectre: left wing and right wing, greenpeace and MNC, French Farmers and Cana-dian figure skaters .

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as hate monger by its opponents in power? Where is theopposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of terrorist, against the more advanced opposition par-ties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Certainly no association has been so maligned in the face of thespread of peace as the crisis committee. Certainly there is no group that has done more for the cause of strife andtension.

In a world filled with abounding peace and unprecedented freedom, the crisis staff is the organization battling dayby day in every area, every nook, every cranny to turn the tide.

Peace and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. It has greatly increased the life-expectancy ofthose who live in “advanced” countries, but it has destabilized society, has made life unfulfilling, has subjectedhuman beings to indignities, has led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical sufferingas well) and has inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of peace will worsen thesituation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world,it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physicalsuffering even in “advanced” countries.

For this reason, the crisis staff stands firm. We shall force each member of the international community to think andrethink their positions. There is no position that is stable, and there is no line that is not susceptible to negotiation.Where to stand fast and where to give in? When to bend and when to stand tall? Ah, now that is the crux of thematter.

As delegates to the University of Michigan Model United Nations, you will be expected to act on behalf of yourassigned country. Coming into the conference, you have prepared vast amounts of research to help you prepare.What we shall do is test not only your knowledge, but your ability to apply what you know to a related or unrelatedtopic. How would Iraq act if its oil fields suddenly dried up? Will a coup in South America set off similar actions inother Southern nations? What would China do if the US intervened in its holdings near the Panama canal? TheUnited Nations is, from time to time, forced to wander from the set path and enter the wilderness of the unknown.Sometimes to act, sometimes to watch; sometimes to advise, sometimes to castigate. These are the types of choicesyou will be faced with making.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women of UMMUN merely players. They have their resolutions andtheir alliances, and each of the representatives in their time plays many parts, their actions paving the road towarda destination as yet unknown.

On behalf of the Crisis Committee, I wish you luck and look forward to seeing you all at the conference.

Joshua E. Rosenblatt, Crisis Staff Director

17


POSITION PAPER SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

The position paper is the way in which the delegates demonstrate their understanding of the topics being dis-cussed by their respective committee and how the nations they represent react to those topics. The paper alsoserves to inform the committee chairperson of both how sincerely the delegate will represent their nation during theconference and how to pace discussion and direction of debate. For these reasons, it is very important to the successof the conference for the position paper to be written in an informed manner and submitted to the committeechairperson on time.

CONTENT:

In a traditional Model United Nations committee, the content of the position paper is the result of an individual’sresearch regarding their country and the topics at hand. The position paper should include original research done bythe student (no plagiarism from the background papers is allowed), the country’s position and bloc policy withregards to their respective topic. Since the readers of the position papers – the directors and assistant directors – arefully knowledgeable of the topics they chose, a general historical background of the topic is not required anddiscouraged. Position papers are required in order to be considered for awards, and will be a deciding factor indetermining the award recipients.

PHYSICAL GUIDELINES:

Please adhere to the following guidelines when writing your position paper(s):

1. Each paper should be one (1) page, single-spaced (or two (2) pages double spaced)

2. Please use a standard font on 8 ½” x 11” plain paper with 1 inch margins on all sides. Multiple pages should bestapled in the upper left corner in the margin area.

3. A plain cover sheet should contain the following in large print:a. delegate’s name & representative countryb. committeec. high school named. date written.

Please submit a separate position paper for each topic.

Position Paper Due Date: January 3rd, 2001 to the UMMUN office:

University of Michigan Model United Nationsc/o Michigan Student Assembly

3909 Michigan UnionAnn Arbor, MI 48109

If you have any questions or problems please contact the director of your committee (contact information can befound in the front of this document), or the UMMUN secretariat at [email protected].

Good luck with your research, and we look forward to seeing you in January!

social, cultural & humanitarian committeemichmun/pdf/SocHum.pdf · social, cultural & humanitarian...

Documents

Transcript of social, cultural & humanitarian committeemichmun/pdf/SocHum.pdf · social, cultural & humanitarian...