WORD OF WELCOME Dear reader, You are holding the second print magazine produced in collaboration by EuroMUN and the Maastricht Diplomat. It feels like yesterday that we smelled the fresh ink on the first of its kind. And yet, a year has passed. A year which has once again changed the face of Maastricht. The first EuroMUN x Maastricht Diplomat printed edition was born out of a shared challenge. In early 2020, the Maastricht Diplomat was forced to give up its cherished printed editions. The student journal had produced 27 over the course of little more than ten years, but only days before the 28th edition – the ‘Science Edition’ – was set to be printed, a respiratory disease went viral. Maastricht, the Netherlands, large parts of the world ground to a halt and the Science Edition was never finished. EuroMUN found itself taken no less by surprise. The conference, scheduled for May 2020, was supposed to be the 13th edition of one of Europe’s largest MUNs but was ultimately cancelled despite the hard work that had gone into its preparation. As life moved online, so did our association. The Maastricht Diplomat has found a new home on its very own shiny web blog, exploring the opportunities of digital journalistic formats. It has in the process become more versatile, more sustainable, and more in touch with the Maastricht community. EuroMUN also ventured into the wonderous world of remote video-conferencing solutions, holding its 2021 edition entirely online. Well, not entirely... In one small gesture of defiance, and perhaps with another touch of nostalgia, EuroMUN and the Maastricht Diplomat teamed up to produce a print magazine which was physically sent out to the conference participants, against all odds of the time. Today, we are euphoric that we are able to welcome you in our little town of Maastricht for the first in-person EuroMUN conference in three years, and as you have noticed by turning this cover, the EuroMUN x Maastricht Diplomat printed edition is here to stay. Everyone involved in last year’s magazine has, in a moment of uncertainty, drawn from what was before and created something that is meant to last. This year’s EuroMUN conference will be held in the same spirit:
“Learning from the past, constructing our future” This magazine is our invitation to ponder on the many perspectives and lived experiences from which we may draw to learn from the past. On the following pages, you find accounts of what a thirty year old treaty tells us about the state of Europe, why a one hundred year old conference was a milestone for gender equality, and how the ancient concept of money is overhauled for a (potentially) better future. 2
C O N T E N TS Although we have (hopefully) left the last pandemic winter in a while behind, our world is not short of uncertainties. During EuroMUN 2022, it is up to you to recognise the lessons that the last two, twenty, or two hundred years have to teach. Long beyond this conference, it will be up to all of us to forge the future. Therefore, we hope your copy will continue to be a source of inspiration and a tactile memory of some insightful days spent in Maastricht. We thank the EuroMUN Organizing Team, the writers of the Maastricht Diplomat, and the members of the Marketing Team of the UNSA who went out of their way to make this magazine possible. Happy reading!
Maria Elena Tsitsiloni, Secretary-General of EuroMUN 2022 Peter Pelzer, Head editor of the Maastricht Diplomat
4 The Contumacious Opiod Epidemic
The Five Pillars World Health Organisation
6 Who is Ensuring the Rights of Refugees?
The Poland-Belarus Border Crisis Human Rights Council
8 The Cryptocurrency Debate
Is Cryptocurrency Harming or Helping Sustainable Development? UN Economic and Social Council
10 Space as an Extension of the Earth?!
Some Thoughts about the Next Decades in Space COPUOS
12 Snakes and Ladders
Sudan’s Long Way to Democracy UN Security Council
14 A License to Hack Russia in Ukraine NATO
16 Who Writes History?
A Detour Beyond the Official Narrative of History Historical Committee
18 The Cultural Fallout of the Cold War
Crisis Committee
20 The Maastricht Treaty turns 30 Maastricht Treaty
22 Facebook
The Only Crucial Book of the Digital Age European Council
24 The GIG Economic Times for the EU
On Our Way to a More Socially Proactive Union Council of the EU & European Parliament
28 Welcome to EuroMUN 2022! Get to know our organising team, explore Maastricht and check the schedule!
3
W O R L D H E A L T H O R G A N I S AT I O N opioids for pain management has also increased in the last two decades – more recently the confiscations of cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy and crystal meth have been higher than ever. Zooming in on The Netherlands, around 800,000 individuals in 2013 were prescribed opioids, which drastically increased to over a million individuals (6.0% of the total population) in 2017. Isolation, anxiety, depression, economic stress, excessive drug use, homelessness, and barriers to mental or physical health treatment in cases have been impacted negatively due to COVID-19. Regarding addiction, the pandemic has impacted the supply of drugs terribly due to various lockdowns, curfews, etc. As such, unreliability has been created in getting these drugs, resulting in an increased overdose risk for some individuals. Moreover, loneliness and isolation from support groups has also caused some to use drugs more frequently and in a more careless manner.
Chinese water tortue is a process by which cold water slowly drips onto the scalp or forehead of a victim who is strapped face up on an inclined platform. A person would be subjected to this for an aeonian period of time, for the sole purpose of driving the victim mad. Experiencing chronic pain is commensurate; a ceaseless drip that consumes a person’s every waking hour – whilst limiting those dormant. In attempting to cease the plague of suffering, a new epidemic was born: the opioid crisis. There four 4
are key
waves in the rise of opioidrelated overdoses. The first wave occurred right during the increased prescription of opioids in the 1990s, attributable to belligerent marketing strategies by pharmaceutical firms. Another spike re-emerging in 2010 due to a surfeit in heroin consumption; a third in 2013 as a consequence of illegally manufactured fentanyl, in addition to the deadly concoction of cocaine, counterfeit pills, and heroin. More recently however, a fourth wave has surged linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the world’s eyes have shifted away from this epidemic, government health experts predict that approximately 90,000 people died due to drug-related overdoses in 2020 alone in the USA. Over in Europe, the use of prescription
However, amongst all these negatives, there have been some good takeaways from the pandemic regarding opioid addiction. The pandemic created a break in people’s lives allowing them to take a moment of selfreflection and to perhaps choose a different path for themselves. And with the blessing (or curse) of the need for online calling platforms, new flexibilities were created so that those that needed treatment but could not find it before the pandemic were now able to find online support very quickly. Therefore, although sequestered away physically, online we could see the opposite of this. Yet, this doesn’t solve the whole crisis. Sure, things have been impacted by COVID-19 both negatively and positively, but looking at the bigger picture we
are forced to beg: what can be done? This is where the five pillars kick in. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has created an Opioid Strategy with such five pillars: early warning and trend analysis, medical and scientific use of opioids, prevention and treatment of opioid use disorders, international law enforcement operations to disrupt illicit trafficking of opioids, and lastly strengthening national and international counter-narcotic capacity. These pillars are further supported with an advocacy plan including active social media campaigns to bring light to what actions have occurred, successes, and current activities. More specifically, looking at the third pillar regarding ‘strengthening and supporting prevention and treatment programmes related to opioids’, this includes investing in connecting addicts and reconnecting the youth into communities to help invest in educational and personal development. One way this is done on an international level that transcends our world of material existence, is through religion. Linking our five pillars in the UNODC Opioid Strategy, Islam has five pillars that constitute the core of the religion: the shahada (belief that there is no god but God (Allah), and Muhammad (PBUH) is the messenger of God), prayer, obligatory charity, fasting, and pilgrimage. Islam has key principles such as moderation, self-awarness, self-discipline, and peace – as the definition of Islam – in order
to restrict the use of harmful substances in the body. In living a life encompassed by these things, individuals create a strong bond between themselves and a higher power; resulting in them being disinclined towards substance abuse. Nonetheless, many followers of Islam end up suffering with addicition and due to the ‘shame’ of such ‘haram’ or ‘forbidden’ acts, are isolated and unable to get the help they need; hence, the data showing such low numbers of Muslims suffering with addiction are far from reliable. Moreover, the pertinence of ensuring that there is adequate treatment for Muslims is seen in the large number (approximately 1.9 billion) of followers of the faith in the world. With the number also constantly growing as it is one of the fastest growing religions. Important considerations for the treatment of Muslims should be taken into account during treatment in order to ensure that the aid is effective and appropriate. Privacy is highly important, and as such Muslim addicts should have their confidentiality maintained. Any disclosures should only be made with permission of the person concerned and if applicable, their family members. As such, privacy is one of the first principles of treating individuals for substance abuse with a commitment to Islam. Moreover, it is important to use the basic principles and other relevant aspects of Islam into the program itself. Although this is not always the case in our modern times, it is often deemed more appropriate to have male counselors and physicians deal
with male clients and vice versa. Going into the counseling itself, when involving religion, it is important to note that Muslims believe that life is a test from God, and as such people have free will. Therefore, change is possible, and although suffering from addiction, there is the possibility to change. On this aspect it is of the utmost importance that the doctrine that an addict has committed ‘unforgivable sins’ should not be echoed. In creating and advocating for proper treatment programmes shaped for Muslims, we are one step closer to helping fight this epidemic. Yes, many of these topics are taboo in regions with Islam as the dominant faith and often also for those that practice the faith. Nevertheless, it is quintessential that we open up these discussions as they will help with prevention and moving forward to help fulfill these five pillars.
“So verily, with the hardship, there is relief. Verily, with the hardship, there is relief” — Surat Ash-Sharh — The Relief, 94:5-6 5
U N I T E D N AT I O N S H U M A N R I G H TS C O U N C I L
Who is Ensuring the Rights of Refugees? The Poland-Belarus Border Crisis by Roo Read
Mustafa Mohammed Murshed Al-Raimi, a 37-year-old Yemeni migrant, was buried in Bohoniki, Poland, Sunday, Nov. 21, 2021. He was one of the 21 reported people from the Middle East and elsewhere who have died in the freezing forests and bogs along the Poland-Belarus border. The local Muslim Tatars, who have lived in the area for centuries, performed the burial service for him and other migrants who were found frozen to death along the border. The summer of 2021 saw thousands of migrants and refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, many of whom are ethnic Kurds, flock to Belarus’ border with Poland. An unknown number of people were abandoned in the borderland, unable to pass the razor-wire fences being monitored closely by Polish military forces. The European Union has accused Belarus’s President Alexander Lukashenko of supporting illegal border crossing in retaliation for EU sanctions – an allegation he has firmly denied. Belarus’ stalemate with Poland and the European Union has mounted up to a humanitarian crisis trapping people in a frosted border region, with limited food, water, shelter and humanitarian aid. But how do the origins of the standoff, the relative scale of the crisis and its implication offer to
6
set it apart from the other familiar migration crossing we have seen in recent years? WHERE DID IT ALL BEGIN? The results of the election in August 2020 saw a fierce clash between protestors and Belarusian authorities. As Lukashenko entered his sixth term in office, massive protests erupted in Belarus, resulting in more than 35,000 people arrested and thousands beaten by police. The election was characterised as a sham by the opposition and the West, leading the EU and the U.S. to impose sanctions on Lukashenko’s government. These sanctions further strengthened as a result of the events on May 23rd, 2021 when a passenger jet flying from Greece to Lithuania was diverted by Belarus to Minsk, due to a purported bomb threat on board. Upon landing in Minsk, dissident journalist Raman Pratasevich was dragged from the plane by Belarusian authorities and arrested. The EU characterised the incident as air piracy and has barred Belarusian airlines from its skies or landing in any of its member states. It further cut imports of the country’s top commodities, including tobacco, petroleum and potash fertiliser. Lukashenko shot back at the EU exclaiming that the sanctions robbed his
government of funds needed to control the flow of migrants and that as a result, he would no longer honour their agreement to contain illegal migration. The crisis continued to simmer in the following months. Reports emerged of refugees flying into Belarus being told to head straight for the borders with Poland, Lithuania and Latvia by Belarusian authorities. Migrants also told journalists that Belarusian authorities gave them wire cutters to help them breach the razor-wire fences and cross into Poland. Belarus is estimated to host between 5,000 and 20,000 migrants and refugees coming from the Middle East and Africa. In November, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki claimed to have knowledge of “diplomatic” connections that Russia and Belarus were developing with Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. He warned the EU to expect that these “diplomatic” ties would only persist the pressures on Poland, emphasising the need for the EU to act jointly. He observed Lukashenko’s move to push migrants towards the Polish border as using them as political bargaining chips against the EU. “There is a threat of an even more difficult scenario,” Morawiecki expressed. “There will most probably be
an attempt at using the crisis in Afghanistan as a new act in the migration crisis, putting to use the West’s remorse related to the disorderly pullout from Afghanistan.” A MANUFACTURED CRISIS At first glance, the crisis looks to have been orchestrated by Lukashenko to deliberately cause trouble for the EU. The EU has slammed Lukashenko for using the migrants as pawns in a “hybrid attack” in retaliation for the sanctions. Lukashenko strongly denies any deliberate use of migrants to unsettle the EU despite repeatedly threatening to do just that. In response to Lukashenko’s threats, Poland’s hard-right government deployed 15,000 military personnel to the border and formed a two-mile-deep militarised zone ringed with razor wire to prevent any illegal entry into the country. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that the increased military presence led to migrants dwelling in a makeshift camp near the border clashing with Polish military police as they tried to enter Poland. The reports of violence range from theft and destruction of migrants’ belongings to intimidation, calculated attacks on refugees and physical assault. Poland has claimed that it is not only protecting its border but protecting the border for all of Europe and NATO. Morawiecki has received support from the EU, NATO and the U.S. for his actions pushing refugees back across the border and has begun building a
€353m wall along its border with Belarus. Yet, it is not only refugees and migrants Polish military forces are pushing back at the border. MSF had to withdraw from the border after being repeatedly thwarted and denied access to treat migrants and refugees. MSF has stated that the EU policies and restricted access for aid organisations may very well result in more migrant and refugee deaths. Before pulling out of the area, MSF spoke with residents of a village in the restricted zone, “Our life has changed in many ways: restless nights, nervous tension, fear that helping refugees will be seen as involvement in human trafficking and smuggling. Fear that right-wing circles might take revenge on the people helping.” Polish residents in restricted zones, if found assisting or offering migrants and refugees shelter, risk being charged with aiding illegal migration. The implications of this standoff has not only blocked aid organisations from assisting in this crisis but journalists have also been prevented from covering the events and stories of migrants at the border. This stands in contrast to other emergencies where reporters had the ability to tell the stories of people seeking refuge in Europe. Take the wave of sympathy for Ukrainian refugees for example. The stories of people fleeing war should not be so hard to tell. Europe should remember by choosing whose stories to narrate reveals their prejudices. After all, it is far easier to dehumanise people when the world can not witness their experiences. Belarus has unsurprisingly received support from its main ally, Russia. Speaking to
all EU countries, Horst Seehofer, Germany’s former interior minister said they “must stand together, because Lukashenko is using people’s fates — with the support of Russian President Vladimir Putin — to destabilise the West.” Poland has similarly argued that Russia bears responsibility for the crisis, prompting the Kremlin to sharply respond. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov retaliated that the West bore responsibility for the crisis and the outpour of migrants, thanks to their “aggressive wars in the Middle East and North Africa.” The migrants, he argued, don’t wish to remain in Belarus and “want to get to Europe that has advertised its way of living for many years.” As our leaders continue to argue like playground bullies, the lives of innocent refugees from wartorn areas are ignored and shelved as the most important factor of this crisis. Mustafa Mohammed Murshed Al-Raimi’s story has disappeared in the myriad of geopolitics, and the EU has essentially lost sight of ensuring basic human rights for these people. Poland’s swift welcoming of more than two million refugees fleeing from Putin’s attack on Ukraine is undoubtedly something to be praised. Yet just north of that border, the EU member state advances its efforts to push back Middle Eastern and African migrants and refugees trying to enter the country from Belarus. Today at the borderland, scraps of cloth dangle from barbed wire and abandoned belongings are buried beneath fallen leaves. The graves of refugees that rest deep in the forest, serve as a bleak reminder of those who tried to make it across.
7
U N I T E D N AT I O N S E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I A L C O U N C I L
The Cryptocurrency Debate:
Is Cryptocurrency Harming or Helping Sustainable Development? by Anthi Likitsakos Cryptocurrencies have caused a lot of buzz in the past few years with some subscribing to the idea of a decentralized currency system, others investing in order to make profit, and some who think the whole operation is a betting game. Whether you are a valiant supporter of Bitcoin and its impact or you are a skeptic of the “scam”, it is hard to ignore that cryptocurrencies have real world implications. The most traded and popular cryptocurrency is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a digital replacement for tangible money that needs to be mined. This “mining” of the digital tokens requires computers calculating long equations for the purpose of “proof of work”. Miners help to verify and tie up transactions in the block chain in order for a new block to be stimulated. Every ten minutes, there is a lottery that grants Bitcoins to computers who have proved their work. While Bitcoin mining used to be achievable on a household computer, in recent years Bitcoin mining involves a room filled with specialized machines costing hundreds of dollars. With these computers, the electricity used in mining one Bitcoin amounts to nine years of household electricity. This means that crypto mining rewards people who use a lot of energy. This results in large scale mining facilities with hundreds 8
of computers, all competing for the same Bitcoins and using up energy. The server farms that generate Bitcoins take up as much energy annually as a small country like the Netherlands. Only 39 percent of that energy is renewable, so the remaining 61 percent is fossil fuels which have devastating effects on the environment. Thus, it is clear that the production of cryptocurrencies, while digital, have real world environmental consequences. However, there is another part to this debate that is also true. Many international organizations such as the UN are turning to the technology behind cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin for environment-saving solutions and progressing sustainable development in lower income countries. The Blockchain, a byproduct of Bitcoin, is a system that records and tracks everything of value. In Bitcoin, it helps to track and verify transactions. This blockchain technology could be applied to a variety of systems outside of cryptocurrencies. It could eliminate intermediaries in the process of verifying transactions, saving time and money. The blockchain could also make governments and organizations more democratic and transparent as well as track the origins of products and
movements. In correspondence with Provenance, a company who has created a public and decentralized blockchain, the commitment to transparency and environment was evident. The VP of marketing Graham Kahr highlighted Provenance’s commitment to level the playing field between large and small corporations and banks. He also mentioned a grants program for programs that enhance the ecosystem or enact social change. These technologies could be applied to sustainable solutions in a number of ways. It could help us make supply chains more transparent. We could track where goods and products come from, helping us to make more ethical and sustainable choices. Making supply chains more transparent could also help to reduce fraud, waste, and unethical practices. For example, we may discover through the transparency of the system that our fair trade products have a large carbon footprint compared to locally grown products. We might also notice unethical practices in one business, and decide to buy from another. We can hold companies accountable for their mistakes or add carbon taxes to goods with large footprints. These ideas are already put to the test in technologies like FOODTRAX.
The main tool of the blockchain would be its transparency and resistance to tampering and fraud. This would be useful in areas with higher reports of corruption or weaker institutions. Blockchain can help get to who needs it most by getting funds directly to beneficiaries. This can be seen in the pilot program in Pakistan of “building blocks”, where the World Food Programme was able to get cash directly to refugees without needing to go through any bank or organization. Projects like BITGIVE and BITHOPE can also help us eliminate the need for middlemen and banks and get money directly to those who need it. This could also affect the lives of many others, including waste pickers, who make a living off of recovering trash. The blockchain could be used to track waste pickups and make sure the right people are paid for their efforts. The blockchain can also be used to reduce fossil fuel emissions by providing transparent and complete data on polluters to track if companies and countries are fulfilling their promises on cutting back emissions. We could track commitments and carbon credits of both governments as well as nonprofits to hold them accountable if they are straying from their commitments. The blockchain can also create new markets for renewable energy
sources, using its decentralized technologies. This could help end our reliance on fossil fuels. A variety of other sustainable solutions have sprung up after the creation of the blockchain. One of them, CarbonX, is a system that turns reduction in greenhouse gas emissions into a cryptocurrency. This would incentivize companies to reduce their footprints and make money in a sustainable way. In conclusion, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies harm the environment with the way in which they are created. However, the blockchain, a byproduct of Bitcoin, can a i d many
efforts for human rights and environmental solutions. This makes the answer to the question of if cryptocurrency is helping or hurting the environment murky, although it’s not mutually exclusive. It is important to note, however, that the two don’t cancel each other out. Cryptocurrencies must face the climate crisis like all other industries in order to succeed in the future. Coins and companies involved in the process must keep their commitments to making cryptocurrencies more sustainable.
9
C O M M I T T E E O N T H E P E A C E F U L U S E S O F O U T E R S PA C E
Space as an Extension of the Earth?!
Some Thoughts About the Next Decades in Space by Simon Wirtz
More than 50 years ago, NASA and humanity reached a milestone in space exploration when Neil Armstrong set the first human foot on the moon. Just like our parents and grandparents, hundreds of millions of people around the world watched the event in awe. Simultaneously, the ‘first man on the moonmoment’ showed the world that, after it had just survived two fatal wars, it was finally time to be optimistic again and believe in development and growth. Since the Apollo mission – which cost the American taxpayer more than 25 billion US-Dollars – was mainly run to show off the strength of the USA as a military power, space has been used in more functional ways. Soon after the Apollo mission, satellites were sent up for communication and broadcasting. They guide our smartphones every time we are using Google Maps. The new race for space Now, two things are changing. Firstly, states are competing again –for the first time since decades –to send people up. China, Russia, India, the US,
10
and other competitors want to show again their strength, and even the German state Bavaria recently founded a space programme (‘Bavaria One’) and plans to invest several millions in it. Secondly, private companies have finally taken their seat at the table. Since 2009, approximately 15% of spending for space missions has been provided by private companies, and it will increase further. Not just mobility and space pioneer Elon Musk, whose company SpaceX has signed several contracts with NASA, is involved in space exploration, but also former Amazon boss Jeff Bezos claims his chunk with his company Blue Origin. The private companies’ involvement with NASA and other state space agencies is interesting for the governments as the private entrepreneurs, besides capital and ideas, can provide much more efficiency. And also, the age of space travel has finally begun. Very recently, SpaceX has sent three space tourists to the ISS in April. For 55 million US-Dollar each, the three businessmen have joined the astro-nauts on the ISS for eight
days. For n o w , trips to space are a funny, b u t very costly endeavor, which only a few people in the world are able to afford. That might change in the future. A reason to be optimistic? As conflicts and tensions on earth are worrying us, and climate change is increasingly threatening our planet, the notion of growing possibilities for traveling (and maybe, at some point also living?) in space provide us with a reason to be optimistic. But the space ambitions are also creating new problems. By far the biggest problem is developing the rule of law, or to be more precise, developing a rule of law that fits the ambitions of everyone involved up there. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which 111 countries are
currently party to and which has been signed but not ratified by another 23 countries, is still in force. It declares space to be ‘the province of all mankind’ and forbids claims of sovereignty. That leaves plenty of room for interpretation –and at the same time many unresolved questions. Should settlers on Mars be allowed to do as they please to the environment and to each other? Who is liable for satellite collisions (of which there are ever and ever more)? Space, right now, is already very crowded, with more than 2,000 satellites and more than 500,000 pieces of debris flying around according to NASA. Another, potentially even more problematic dimension is the extension of war on earth into space. Modern warfare does not work without satellites. States are, of course, aware of that and have built anti-satellite weapons, which they can use without much hesitation as there is no law in place to prevent it. Nations like the US, China and India are currently increasing their capabilities in this area, including blinding satellites with lasers or destroying them right away, producing debris that might cause even more destruction unintendedly. But will national armies also fight each other in space?
A new battlefield Michael Schmitt, professor of public international law and a space war expert at the University of Exeter in the UK says that ‘it is absolutely inevitable that we will see conflict move into space’. According to Schmitt, the history of space warfare already began during the Cold War, when Russia and the US had many ideas about how they could use it to kill and weaken their respective enemy. One was called kinetic bombardement weapon, an unmanned space bomber that carried small projectiles which gathered so much speed that they reached the explosive power of a nuclear bomb. High costs and the fact that the satellites carrying these weapons can be shot down easily have prevented states from using them. In the last two decades, both Russia and China have shown their capabilities by running tests, including shooting down their own satellites, as the Chinese government did in 2007 when they destroyed one of their own weather satellites at an 865 km distance to earth. Schmitt however also reckons that it is unlikely they would start warfare like that. According to him, it can be done much cheaper and more hidden: ‘The immediate
form would be cyber-attacks, either against the satellites or the ground stations that control them.’ But of course, nothing is impossible, and states pulling their heavy arms in space could happen sooner rather than later. Jan Wörner, director-general of the European Space Agency (ESA), which is mandated to pursue peaceful space exploration, is worried about that. He calls for new legal restrictions and is working on a proposal together with his colleagues. He is also part of an international consortium of law, military and space experts who are working out the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Operations. The project tries to find solutions for problems that might occur in the future. As the possibilities are growing, tourism and war are slowly but surely coming to space. Whilst space tourism is only affordable for the super rich (yet), it might, in some decades and with more productivity become more affordable. Space warfare is increasingly worrying the experts, as there is no law in place to regulate the lust for destruction in space.
11
U N I T E D N AT I O N S S E C U R I T Y C O U N C I L Sudan’s movement towards democracy has been a long and arduous journey that has yet to find light at the end of the tunnel. The fight for democracy began in 2019 when citizens, having joined forces with the military, managed to overthrow the powerful dictator Omar Al-Bashir amidst mass protests. While this was probably one of the greatest moments of victory for Sudanese democracy, it simultaneously became one of the steppingstones to the country’s recent instability. After a compromise was reached
between the military and civilians, the military took control of the government, before partially handing the power over to a civilian-led government in August 2019, with Abdalla Hamdok as prime minister. However, as time passed by, another failed coup attempt arose in September 2021 which was supposedly staged by AlBashir loyalists. The military leaders began to blame the civilian leaders for Sudan’s dire economic situation while the civilian leaders accused the opposition of threatening the democratic transition. The
government dissolved, leading to large-scale protests for democracy and a civilian government. On 25 October 2021, the military, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, took over through a successful third coup. The military once again detained the civilian leaders and decided to appoint a puppet government instead, announcing the possibility of elections to be held in July 2023.
Why the military won’t let go of power Following the 2019 overthrow of Bashir, a somewhat unstable civilianmilitary coalition was agreed upon to transition Sudan into a democracy by 2023. Arguably the main reason for the army to remain in power and not to transfer competences to civilians is that they too have committed war crimes. Staying at the top is the only way to stave off accountability.
transitional agreement, a commission was launched to investigate the massacre, under the authority of then-Prime Minister Hamdok. Were the commission to complete its task, the military’s rule would have been untenable. Consequently, they carried out yet another coup in October 2021 which was partly catalyzed by internal divisions within the ruling civilian Forces of Freedom and Change coalition. Those decreased the latter’s popularity, creating an opportunity for the military to take over.
One such crime was the 3 June 2019 massacre, when soldiers raped 70 people and killed more than 128 during a civilian sit-in protest in Khartoum. As part of the 39-month
A genocidal regime The most recent coup comes within a series of dramatic events in Sudan. The country has been a dictatorship for most of its recent history. Omar al-Bashir rose to power in 1989, after he led a military coup against the democratically elected government of Sadiq al-Mahdi. His 30-year rule saw the Second Sudanese Civil War which resulted in the secession of South Sudan, as well as the war in Darfur. In both cases, one of the main issues was the cultural differences between an Arab Muslim north, dominating the government based in Khartoum, and a Christian and animist south. In the western Darfur region, rebel groups 12
fought against the government, claiming it was oppressing Darfur’s non-Arab population. And indeed, in retaliation, Khartoum has proceeded to an ethnic cleansing campaign. From 2003 onwards, in an effort to eliminate the rebellious forces, Bashir’s government has ordered the systematic killing of Darfuri citizens, with the help of militias. The semi-nomadic Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes were targeted by this genocide, where rape and chemicals were weapons used to decimate their population, in a context of Arab racism. According to a UN estimate, 300,000 people died, while nearly 3 million were displaced.
Bashir was later indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, for many years the government refused to extradite Bashir to the Hague. This changed in 2019 after the dictator’s ousting, when an agreement was reached for the transfer, after he would have gone through domestic trials.
Snakes and Ladders Sudan’s Long Way to Democracy
by Sarbani Bag and Jonathan Wijayaratne
Although the path to democracy appears to be an unsteady one, it is a valuable movement for the citizens of Sudan. It is through democracy that the concerns of the people will be heard and prioritized. Sudan is one of a long list of vulnerable countries devastated by colonialism that are once again pawns in the game of the great powers. It is time to put people’s lives before the struggle for hegemony and capital.
(move up the ladders and down the snakes) International implications Sudan’s political situation has drawn the attention of the great imperialist powers. After the expulsion of Al-Bashir, Sudan was able to re-establish its relationship with the West and to benefit from Western foreign investments and aid. The US, in particular, contributed approximately $430 million in 2021 and 2022. The EU also plans to be involved by working on the prevention of violence against protestors. The US has been committed to holding economic influence over Sudan through these relations as it competes for influence with other global players. Approximately thirty percent of the world’s shipping containers travel through the Red Sea, which is the
shortest path from Asia and the Middle East to Europe and Eastern US. As a result, Sudan’s location has piqued the interest of these imperialist powers seeking to protect their economic and strategic interests. The majority of these imperialist powers have demonstrated a clear stance against the coup. The coup resulted in a suspension of the foreign aid programme provided by the US and the EU has threatened to suspend financial support if the military does not restore the power of civilian leaders. The African Union also suspended Sudan’s membership. This coup worries the EU, as the political instability may affect the oil supply
A civilian struggle While there are undeniable divisions amongst the democratic forces, the anti-democratic faction has its own internal divisions. Alongside military officials are Islamists, former rebel leaders and members of militias, all with competing interests. The Hamdok-led ruling coalition, which has since the coup been partially reinstated to give the world an illusion of stability, has fooled workers into joining parties and armed forces that predated the 2019 protests, making it more of a restoration than a revolution. Hamdok and the Forces of Freedom and Change have given up on most of their progressive agenda and taken on the old informal political routine.
and create more refugees. The US and other Western powers released a joint statement welcoming Hamdok’s reinstatement and further pushing for a political transition to a full-civilian rule. On the contrary, other countries encourage military rule instead. Russia appears to benefit from the coup, possibly granting it access to Port Sudan. Not to forget Egypt, as it appreciates having a neighbor with a similar governance model to its own. Although Saudi Arabia and the UAE also supported Al-Burhan to an extent in the past, they signed a statement encouraging the military leaders to return to the transitional agreement.
The fact is, a revolution does not suit the aims of the upper and middle classes. The current political establishment and institutions benefit them as well as the army, due to high levels of corruption and the centralisation of riches. But as military rule is becoming more and more unpopular, the workers’ and youth’s voices raise, shedding lights of hope. The younger generations, who have experienced democracy only for a couple years, have an ideal for which they made clear they will sacrifice. So, instead of settling down for compromises, aiming to grab power entirely can allow them to push this revolution further, despite the possible high costs. 13
N O RT H AT L A N T I C T R E AT Y O R G A N I S AT I O N
A Licence to Hack: Russia in Ukraine By Mercure Libbrecht Gourdet
In cybersecurity it is no longer asked if your system gets breached, it is asked when. No system is safe in the 21st century. Since recently, hackers have changed. They are not just computer whizkids in their college dorm trying to hack themselves into a secure system just for ego and fun. Their motivation has changed as state powers saw the opportunity to disrupt other actors: it has become a way of sabotage with minimal risk and cost. Attacks on digital systems can have fatal repercussions in the real world. Since everything, notably public infrastructure, is connected to the internet, the possibility for severe disruption is only several lines of code away. There are many different types of cyber attacks, all with different goals. Malware can for example be placed on a targeted computer and steal data, possibly without ever being detected, or take virtual control of the computer and modify things on the computer and its connected databases. Ransomware also plays an important role as it allows the criminals to extort something valuable from their victims. Another major type of attacks are the so-called “distributed denial of service” (DDoS) attacks: thousands and hundreds of thousands of fake users try to do the same thing at the same time, for example requesting a form from a certain website. Under this increased traffic, servers can break down rendering their service unavailable to other users.
stands out above all: Russia. Russia, through its secret service GRU, has long been waging a war against the world through cyberspace and regularly uses hackers to sabotage other countries. Small groups such as Fancy Bear have been known to attack their targets, mostly government and military services, with financial help from the GRU. Notable victims are NATO, the White House and the OSCE. Perhaps most famously they were behind the email hack against Hillary Clinton supposed to influence the 2016 US Presidential Elections. One recurring target of Russian hackers has been Ukraine. It is no news that tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been on the rise since the fall of the Soviet Union. Inevitably, those tensions spilled over into cyberspace. Ukraine, as the training ground for Russian hackers, has been plagued with several attacks of varying intensity since 2013. The first major attack was a DDoS assault on the 2014 election commission to try to corrupt the results and nominate a far right candidate. The scheme got caught in time by Ukrainian officials and Petro Poroschenko was lawfully elected President.
In the realm of global cyber terrorist attacks, some hackers have found themselves with surprisingly powerful allies: sovereign states. Some Governments realised that cyber warfare was an important tool and that they can use to their advantage. They decided to enrol individuals, and groups, that possessed the necessary skill into their service,to disrupt their opponents. It started to seep into the public consiousnessaround 2010 with Stuxnet, a malware used by the US and Israel to sabotage Iran’s Nuclear Program. This publically kicked off a boom in State sponsored The next prominent cyber attack, in December of cyber attacks, since then rising to new heights. 2015, was much more severe and showed what And in this game of digital sabotage, one country damage cyber warfare can achieve: an attack on the companies responsible for the electrical grid of 14
Kyiv and other cities. As the first cyber attack in history where physical infrastructure was attacked, it was a decisive moment and showed that the threat is real and that people can actually achieve this. Especially with a vital element such as the electrical power grid, it can quickly snowball into a real crisis and matters of life and death. A similar cyber attack was executed in December of 2016, again paralysing the electrical grid for hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Ukrainian capital. The attackers planned to overload circuits which could have caused dangerous physical damage in the affected power plant. In this series of attacks, several agencies of the Ukrainian government were also hit, leading to the deletion of terabytes of data and even managed to destroy the national budget of that year. Both these attacks have now been attributed to a hacker group that allegedly was linked to the GRU called Sandworm. A group of merely six people, that now have been convicted, was thought to be behind the attacks, which shows how easy and cost-effective this type of warfare is. This type of action is difficult to track: besides missing all the regulations of government agencies, hackers also dissimulate their tracks. It is easy to stay anonymous on the internet. And since government agents hire those people to act as separate agents, it is difficult to hold the former accountable. Sandworm struck again in Ukraine multiple times in 2017, but also tried to intervene in that year’s French Election. While unsuccessful on that front, they landed another harsh strike with the NotPetya malware.
that 80% of the virus’ activity was concentrated in Ukraine. This series of attacks took place on the 27th of June, only a day before the national holiday of Constitution Day, which prompted suspicions of it being politically motivated by Russia. The virus appeared on computers in vastly different sectors from the military to hospitals, encrypting data on the hard drive and demanding ransom. But the ransom was only a pretext and the virus deleted all the data on the infected computers. Given that it spread all over Europe (and the US), it was bound to at some point reach a computer with critical responsibilities: it did so for the computer systems of Maersk, one of the world’s leading shipping firms, which led to a complete breakdown of their logistics and mass confusion in the shipping sector. Another target was pharmaceutical giant Merck whose manufacturing was disrupted. Billions of dollars were lost and hospitals in Ukraine found themselves with no power to care for their patients. Since then, no Russian cyber attacks as severe as NotPetya have surfaced. Sandworm continues to be active but shifted to other targets such as the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang. Yet tension between Ukraine and Russia continued on and escalated on the 24th of February 2022 with the armed invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops. Days before the invasion, several Ukrainian government websites had been targeted, notably the one of the ministry of foreign affairs. With the brutal, armed invasion overshadowing all other aspects of this war, cyber attacks have been more or less forgotten on Ukrainian soil: the focus is now on trying to stop this massacre and helping the people on the ground. Yet all those attacks have left a fear of a full-blown cyber war Cyber warfare is one of the biggest threats in 21st century conflicts because of the impact it can have on the civilian population. The power grid in a major city being shut down means hospitals are unable to care for patients. It means communication and emergency lines are interrupted. Especially in regions already in a state of emergency, such as Ukraine currently, a collapse of the IT infrastructure makes them descend even further into chaos and cost human lives.
NotPetya saw its hour of glory in 2017, with a widespread attack on France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States but also, and most importantly, on Ukraine and Russia. The Cybersecurity firm ESET reported 15
H I STO R I C A L C O M M I T T E E
Who writes history? A Detour Beyond the Official Narrative of History by Paula Nörr Whether at school or in university, most of us learned about the Paris Peace Conference as a crucial event in European history. Are you not familiar with it? Or have you forgotten about it by now? No worries, I will provide you with some key facts about the spectacular event before we go beyond the official narrative. By exploring a concurrent event with the Paris Peace Conference, namely the Inter-Allied Women’s Conference (IAWC), this article sheds light on the role of women in history and how gender inequality had an impact on them. Since gender inequality is a prevailing structural problem in international decision-making, we should be cautious not to repeat mistakes of the past and take into account the lessons history teaches us. The Paris Peace Conference convened in 1919 and 1920 at the Quai d’Orsay in Paris to establish the terms of peace in Europe after World War I. Although it is often referred to as the “Versailles Conference”, only the first of several treaties was signed in the historical palace of Versailles. Diplomats from 32 countries, representing the victorious Allies, came together to negotiate and write history. The conference resulted in the League of Nations and five peace treaties that rearranged the maps of Europe, parts of Asia, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, and also drew new national boundaries. The five major powers, France, Britain, Italy, Japan, and the 16
United States blamed the losing nations of Germany and its allies for the war and imposed penalties and reparations on them. This caused political resentments that considerably impacted the historical development of Europe in the inter-war period. The leaders of the four main allied powers, Prime Ministers Lloyd George of Great Britain, Georges Clemenceau of France, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, and US President Woodrow Wilson became known as the so-called “Big Four”. Have you noticed something? No? Well, that is not surprising. Gendered history is the mainstream, and we are used to hearing primarily about the great achievements of male politicians and diplomats. And yes, for the greatest part of history, women did not participate in diplomatic and political talks. But, believe it or not, there were still women living and politicizing at that time. After World War I, a group of women leaders in the international women’s suffrage movement was sick of not being allowed to sit at the negotiating table. Under the leadership of Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger, they were determined to establish fundamental social, economic, and political rights for women. Being denied seats at the official Paris Peace Conference, Valentine Thompson, Margery Corbett Ashby, Florence Jaffray Harriman and Jane Brigode among others started a counter-conference, the IAWC, which convened in parallel from 10 February to 10 April 1919.
The main activity of the IAWC was to lobby Wilson and other delegates of the Paris Peace Conference to admit women to the Conference. And the ladies succeeded in doing so, at least to some extent: Seventeen delegates from the IAWC were heard by the Conference’s Commissions for International Labor Legislation and by the League of Nations Commission on 10 April 1919. It was the first time in Western history that women were allowed to participate formally in international decisionmaking and treaty negotiations. On that occasion, they presented a resolution that concerned the trafficking and sale of women and children, the political status and suffrage of women, and the imperative establishment of education as a human right of all persons in each nation. Although the women did not achieve a lot of their objectives, they were at least successful in securing the right for women to serve in the League of Nations for all positions. Their historical achievement was documented in Article 7 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: “All positions under or in connection with the League, including the Secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women.” Furthermore, their proposed provisions for fair labor conditions and the prevention of human trafficking were adopted by the Conference. With the women’s concrete achievements, both women’s rights and human rights were introduced in
international policy-making. The discussion of these crucial rights thereby eventually found a global platform and achieved to attract attention in the newly established world order. Owing to the brave and ambitious women of the IAWC, we nowadays perceive the participation of women in international politics as a matter of course. While inclusivity and representation are carefully considered at EuroMUN, there are other crucial political events that significantly lack an awareness of gender inequality. The Munich Security Conference 2022 for instance sparked a vibrant discussion about women’s involvement and representation in international diplomatic talks after a photo of an all-male CEO lunch went viral. This image shows that still today women are not only underrepresented, but often completely absent in international decision-making. It mirrors the prevalent power structures and gender inequalities in our current societies, where in political discussions women’s voices are either muted or neglected. Some governments try to reduce gender inequalities more systematically by adopting a Feminist Foreign Policy. This political framework intends to guarantee human rights and equity through diplomatic relations, thereby achieving a more peaceful and inclusive human living globally. A substantive body of research indicates that countries with more gender equality benefit from good, stable governance and are less likely to experience war. By now, we all know that states in conflict are more likely to achieve enduring peace when female political stakeholders are involved in peace negotiations. And yet, political leaders stick to “traditional” procedures, where
women and LGBTQIA+ often do not take a seat. Seems like nothing has changed really since 1919? Of course, that is not true. Offices of several highranking and influential political positions are, or were already, held by women. Yet, societies and politics of today suffer from structural gender inequality, intersecting with other categories of inequality. The mere adoption of gender equality as a term on the agenda is still not sufficient. Since our processes and mindsets are so embedded in the patriarchy, it is about a change of seemingly eternal structures. Acknowledging the generous concessions that have been made in terms of gender equality in the last decades, I see similarities between global politics today and in 1919. Until today, women have to work hard – harder than men – to take part in political decision-making, especially in an international setting. And like in the interwar period, our world is experiencing a transformational process of a kind that hasn’t been seen since World War II or at least since the fall of the Berlin wall. With the climate crisis, rising populism, and globalization out of control we are facing serious challenges. If we aim to tackle these problems effectively and peacefully, we need to discuss them in a more diverse, inclusive and diplomatic setting.
have made great decisions once and for all. The participants of EuroMUN, on the contrary, are just getting warmed up. They are the decision-makers of tomorrow. As such, it is important to take opinions into account that do not fit in the mainstream. They should therefore listen to the quiet voices and give room to speak to those who do not have a voice at all. Until today, human rights and women’s rights are threatened and need to be defended. History is important because it teaches us lessons. Even those chunks of history that are not part of the official story or cannot be found in history books do. One is: Just because women are not mentioned in history, it does not mean that women have not played a role in it. Another is: we live in a society that is embedded in patriarchal structures, where people are hindered to live their full potential. At EuroMUN you should learn from history and not repeat mistakes of the past. Write your own history, all, together.
Contemporary challenges and the question how to deal with them are now the main concern of another historical event, EuroMUN 2022. What does this all mean for EuroMUN 2022 then? Participants will debate, find solutions, and take decisions just as the delegates of the Paris Peace Conference did. The difference is that these big men 17
CRISIS COMMIT TEE
The Cultural Fallout of the Cold War By Brendan Hogan & Valentina Giolli
“If a bomb drops on you, gets your friends and neighbors too, there’ll be nobody left behind to grieve” 27 October 1962. Far below the surface of the Atlantic, a stone’s throw from Cuba in international waters, lies a submarine. Inside, lights flash red as three uniformed officers look one another nervously in the eyes, sweating and arguing about whether to launch a torpedo at enemy ships. A torpedo tipped with a nuclear payload. The Soviet submarine, B-59, had sunk very deep in order to avoid US vessels, cutting it off from radio communication with other vessels in the flotilla and more importantly from Moscow. This also meant that it was impossible for the Soviet submarine to communicate with the US ships that were pursuing it. A common practice for war ships in this
18
scenario was to drop signaling depth charges, a low yield submersible bomb, that inform submarines that their presence is known and force them to surface for identification. A controversial, and aggressive, practice to conduct in international waters. It was under these circumstances that the captain of B-59, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, intended the launch of the nuclear torpedo, interpreting the US actions as a sign that war had already broken out on the surface. He needed to get the approval of the political officer on board, which he did. Ordinarily that would have sufficed, but that day the flotilla chief of staff was also on board meaning that he would also have to agree to the launch. This was Vasili Aleksandrovich Arkhipov, and he argued against the launch, rather that the vessel should surface and contact Moscow. Arkhipov insisted and a launch was avoided, and so were the consequences of a nuclear conflict. It is not hard to argue that this was
a moment that could have ended modern humanity. The incident took place at the tail end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a period of high intensity in the Cold War where both sides were ready to launch their nuclear arsenals and wipe the other off the face of the planet. An act that in the process would end most human life on earth. The prelude to the Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1958 when the US placed intermediate range nuclear missiles in Turkey, uncomfortably close to Moscow. Followed by the Bay of Pigs Invasion in April of 1961, when the US helped Cuban exiles, which it had trained and armed, launch an amphibious invasion of revolutionary Cuba. The invasion failed and led to a secret agreement between the USSR and Cuba to station nuclear missiles within spitting distance of the US. When the US discovered this, they blockaded Cuba in order to stave off the completion of the missile bases. This was what became the Cuban Missile Crisis, marking October of 1962 as the climax of the Cold War when the two
nuclear armed superpowers played an existential game of chicken. The crisis only came to an end when the US and USSR agreed to dismantle their intermediate range capabilities and the US guaranteed it wouldn’t invade Cuba. A peak of the absurdity that is mutually assured destruction and the insanity of nuclear conflict. Luckily for us, Arkhipov didn’t turn the key. While this may have been the climax for us looking back at the conflict, and its absurdity, on full retrospective display, not all these details were known at the time. Additionally, it is easy to forget that, in hindsight, it all seems so condensed into a short linear course of events, yet for people present then it was experienced in real time. For those who lived at the time, the ever present existential dread brought on by the constant possibility of nuclear armageddon created a lot of anxiety, a state of feeling that must have become particularly acute during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But this was only one moment in the Cold War, with this anxiety permeating through the culture of the time, manifesting in many and often contradictory ways. Pop culture in the 60s was wild, especially in the good ol’ US of A, where the paranoia of preparedness for nuclear conflict had been pushed by the government since shortly after World War II. By the early 60s it was fashionable, for white suburbanites, to show off their new fallout shelters. Or with public service announcements,
such as Walt Builds a Family Fallout Shelter, describing the dangers of nuclear weapons and the benefits of fallout shelters. Existentialism became the latest consumerist fad, just another tool to sell to the public. It went further into everyday culture of the time with it showing up in various forms in popular media such as film and song. Both fiction and non-fiction authors described possible incidents or war. Anti-war and anti-nuclear protest songs became a popular genre. There was also a level of humorous critique which often took the form of satire. The comedian Tom Lehrer, with his “rousing uplifting song” We will all go together when we go, took a positive spin as he rhymes “if a bomb drops on you, gets your friends and neighbors too, there’ll be nobody left behind to grieve”. The black humour of the song, which Leher presents as a “survival hymn”, shows the paradoxical ways in which people cope with an omnipresent, senseless existential threat. Another stirring example is Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Kubrick challenged the opinion, popular in the 60s, that the bigger your arsenal, the less likely you would be attacked. The assumption that people as rational beings are always ready to act in the interest of their own country is subverted by the character of Jack D. Ripper, the main antagonist of the movie and caricature of a crazy American
general who is obsessed with weapons and the USSR. Ripper, portrayed by Sterling Hayden, blames the Soviets for ruining his sexual performance as part of an elaborate plot. Enough of a reason to drop the nuclear bomb on them, becuase the politicians are in on it too. Kubrick displays the irrationality that characterises every human being, we all act logically only within our personal rational frame of reference. The movie mocks the system that puts such powerful weapons, with the destiny of humanity attached to them, into the hands of people incapable of using them wisely. The film ends, and so does the world, with a cowboy riding a nuclear bomb as it drops on the USSR. Emphasising the sheer absurdity of it all. All this being said, people at the time were not only affected by this absurd dread but also aware of its absurdity. When compared to today it seems like we are not too far off with the ever present threat of climate catastrophe and the recent reemergence of a brand new nuclear threat. Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis sent their President letters to “not press the red button”. Not unlike people pleading to Joe Biden on Twitter to not start World War III. In the same vein we today reflect our anxiety in pop culture, be it songs, films, books or memes. Especially the memes. We, the generation born around the millennium, are once again asking ourselves “what do we want to be if we grow up?”
19
M A AST R I C H T T R E AT Y
The Maastricht Maastricht Treaty Treaty The turns 30turns 30 By Lee-Ann Lichtenberger
By Lee-Ann Lichtenberger
February 7, 2022. It appears to be a regular Monday morning in Maastricht. It is cloudy and cold, and we are all thinking about the things we will do during the day. We might have to prepare for our next class, go to work or remember to buy groceries. But exactly thirty years ago, on 7th February 1992, a particular group of people gathering in the Gouvernement aan de Maas building in Randwyck had a very different task: signing the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Treaty, also known as the Treaty on European Union, represents the foundation of the European Union. Signed by the representatives of the twelve European nations that then formed the European Community (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom), the treaty’s aim was “to mark a new stage in the process of European integration”. Since its entry into force on 1st November 1993 officially marking the establishment of the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty has had a profound impact on the daily lives of millions of Europeans. The effects of the treaty encompassed three pillars. First, the three communities EEC (European Economic Community), ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) and Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community) were embedded under the “European Union”. The second pillar concerned a common foreign and security policy. Finally, the last pillar referred to cooperation between the member states regarding justice and home affairs. While the Maastricht Treaty has paved the way for significant changes on an institutional level, it is also interesting to see what it meant for the daily life of European citizens. First of all, the concept of European citizenship established by the treaty meant that people in Europe were not just citizens of their own country anymore. They had now also become citizens of the European Union. Moreover, the Maastricht treaty opened the door for the introduction of the single currency: the euro. Both the status as EU citizens as well as the euro have profoundly shaped the way that EU citizens live, work and move within Europe. But what exactly was the significance of the treaty 20
in the context of European integration? What were the hopes of these European politicians that were, in a sense, the architects of the European Union? On 7th February 2022, the platform Studio Europa Maastricht invited Frans Timmermans, Vice President of the European Commission, to reflect on the 30th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty in a live broadcast that can be found on Studio Europa’s YouTube channel. In the studio, the interviewer and Frans Timmermans, seated opposite of each other, were joined by an online audience of students between 19 and 24 years old that had the chance to ask Timmermans interesting questions about the Maastricht Treaty and the EU. In the beginning of the broadcast, Timmermans tells about his own position as a diplomat working in Moscow in the years leading up to the signature of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. In the way Timmermans speaks about this period, it becomes clear that, as someone who has grown up in a profoundly divided Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a very significant event in his life. In Timmermans’ view, the Maastricht Treaty is “the reflection of Europeans trying to come to terms with the fall of the [Berlin] Wall” and the way that Europe was going to change after the end of the European divide. Timmermans uses this moment to recall the fascination he felt in regards to the rapidity and the extent of the changes that followed the end of the Cold War. The unification of Germany in particular was an important milestone leading up to the Maastricht Treaty and its notions of European integration and cooperation. Looking back on the years of the treaty, Frans Timmermans remembers two “driving forces”. Since it was a time of major political changes, there was fear for instability and violence within Europe. But the end of the Cold War also meant an end to the threat of a “nuclear armageddon” that was predominant in people’s minds throughout the 80s. In this time of optimism, the Maastricht Treaty represented a way to avoid conflict and ensure stability. Or, in the words of Frederica Mogherini, former Vice President of the European Commission, Maastricht was “a revolution” since it marked the first time in history that “building peace became the aspiration of a continent”.
A lot has happened in the last thirty years. Further sixteen countries have joined the European Union. A whole generation has grown up knowing only the Europe of the EU, not remembering a time before the euro or the freedom of movement inside the EU. In a way, Europe witnessed the construction of a new collective memory amongst young Europeans. Sitting in the studio in front of the young student audience, Timmermans calls attention to the fact that their position of not having to live in a deeply divided Europe represents “a huge huge gift that goes unnoticed”. In addition, the Treaty on European Union itself has also been subject to change, notably with the signature of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. The latter abolished the three pillar system to give way to the European Union as a legal personality that succeeded the European Communities. However, the European Union did not just face internal changes. The very idea of European integration has been challenged time and again by various crises, people and nations. From the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the European migration crisis of 2015 and Brexit to the Covid-19 pandemic and the current conflict at the EU’s eastern borders, the EU had to overcome many obstacles. With currently 27 member states and a wide range of political positions within the EU, finding a common solution to complex challenges often lead to long and heated negotiations. In light of all these crises, the optimism that accompanied the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 seems to have dissipated and euroscepticism is on the rise. In addition, the increasing aggression of Russia towards the EU raises concerns of a new European divide. For Frans Timmermans, to whom this matter is visibly of high importance, this represents “a test of our solidarity and of our resilience”. But as someone who has witnessed the struggles and successes of the European Union since 1992, Timmermans stresses with determination that “we are only weak if we are divided. If we are united, we are so strong.” In the broadcast organized by Studio Europa Maastricht, Timmermans also addressed the challenge faced by the EU in terms of its own diversity. With several prospective member states which would enlarge the EU even further, it is important that the European Union strengthens the way it deals with the diversity within the EU. According to Timmermans, in some circles within the EU there is “the feeling that we can’t handle more member states”, which is increased by attacks against the rule of law. While Timmermans does not name any specific countries as examples,
thinking about the recent developments in Poland or Hungary might be contributing to the sentiment that the EU should first take measures to safeguard the rule of law in its current member states before admitting new members. Yet, not only the criteria for membership should be strict. By using a metaphor about how difficult it becomes to criticize a family member once they are sitting with you at the table, Timmermans also alludes to the importance of the EU standing up to its own member states if it becomes necessary. Furthermore, one of the EU’s biggest challenges is how it deals with the climate crisis. While reflecting on lessons learned in the thirty years after the Maastricht Treaty, Timmermans admits that the EU was “much too late in devising a Green Deal agenda” and that it should have worked harder on a common foreign policy. In regards to the climate crisis, Timmermans also emphasizes that trade agreements with international partners need to reflect the EU’s goals concerning the environment. Finally, when asked whether we need a new treaty or a treaty revision to achieve the EU’s projects, such as the Green Deal, Timmermans argues confidently that we have not yet reached all of the possibilities of the existing treaties. It is evident that the European Union currently faces different challenges, both internally as well as externally. In the last thirty years, it has gained valuable experiences, yet today’s world seems more complex than ever. One of the strategies that the EU wants to use in order to deal with the new issues is seeking closer contact with its citizens. Timmermans explains that with the Conference on the Future of Europe, the EU wants to “engage with the widest possible audience of European citizens” in order to get to know their priorities and interests. A further instrument used to involve EU citizens and learn about their concerns is the Eurobarometer. In the latest Future of Europe report, published in January 2022, it becomes clear that social inequalities and concerns for the environment are considered to be the main challenges for the EU. The European Union has come a long way since the signature of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Cooperation within Europe has enabled many benefits for member states. Yet, more and more people call into question the meaning and the role of the European Union in this day and age. The future of the EU certainly depends a lot on the way it will deal with the various crises and complex global challenges that we face today and tomorrow.
EUROPEAN COUNCIL
Anahita Lotfollahzadeh Today at 12:34
Facebook: The only crucial book of the digital age Facebook and co. might be the big tech equivalent to the infamous toxic ex-partner most of us have at least encountered in the movies. This particular person is simultaneously good and bad for you and entirely inescapable despite all efforts. They are someone who randomly appears at all the parties you go to and send you friendship requests online. Somehow they end up knowing way more about your life than you would like. You love them, but the uncertainty just won’t vanish. The difference between the two? Your ex probably does not monetize their knowledge… Or do they? Enough with the metaphors. In this day and age, it is almost impossible to remove ourselves from a life intertwined with technology. We are dealing with an omnipresent technological dependency of individuals, businesses, and even governments. Many have been asking the question of how much longer big tech can remain in a more or less
unregulated and legal gray zone. The concerns range from “To what extent should digital monopolies be tolerated?” to “How can mental health concerns, in terms of Big Tech, be acted upon?” to “How can freedom of speech, the freedom of press and democracy be secured in the face of limiting the spread of false information and illegal content?”. Let’s start simple. Before we get into the issues concerning Big Tech, we should define Big Tech. There are different interpretations of the expression ‘Big Tech’. You might define it broadly, as in the world’s biggest information technology companies. More commonly, it narrows down to Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, and depending on the source, Twitter and Netflix. These companies are known to play an essential role in fields of technology ranging from consumer electronics to artificial intelligence. A range of news and media outcries connected to these companies has slowly, but steadily, led to growing skepticism
Your friend and 26 others
22
Like
towards them. Most importantly, it brought about increased concern regarding the neglect of their regulation. One distinct example is the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Cambridge Analytica, a British ‚global election management company’ and political consulting firm, collected personal data of users without their consent in order to construct psychometric voter profiles. Many actors tied this firm to the British and American conservative political groups. Consecutively, Cambridge Analytica analytically assisted Donald Trump’s and Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaigns using those illegally obtained voter profiles. For academic research purposes, Facebook stated, researchers were routinely provided access to user data, adding that users consent to this when creating a Facebook account. According to Facebook, the platform generally prohibits personal user data to be sold for advertising and monetization purposes. Details are fuzzy, since statements made at different points in time by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook officials changed in nuance and were incoherent.
Comment
This scandal reminded the public, once more, that if we are not paying for the product, we most probably are the product. Meaning our data is collected and used to make a profit. Not all of these practices are illegal. Still, many are to be placed in the legal gray zone. The aforementioned legally gray zone is not something that should be taken lightly, is it? Technology can greatly impact the way that individuals and societies develop. Thus, legal gray zones are in need of some color. There is a problematic inconvenience in the way of imposing a legal frame on information technology companies. These companies are international. Setting up a global legal framework would be utopic. Therefore, it makes sense to build this frame supranationally. In March 2022, new rules by the European Union, a supranational union of 27 member states, were discussed between Parliament and Council negotiators. Those rules, outlined in the Digital Markets Act (DMA), aim to put a limit on big tech market power. Abuse of ‘gatekeeping powers’ are looked to be banned. Gatekeeping platforms are those that function as a bottleneck for digital marketing. A rather simple example would be a search engine, which by selecting the results shown to consumers, controls access to the online market. To be considered gatekeepers, companies must control a large part of this market. They must be valued at more than 75 billion Euros, with sales exceeding 7,5 billion Euros and a minimum of 45 million users per month. The proposed DMA strives to broaden user choice. Payment systems binding the users of certain devices and operating systems would be prohibited. For instance, Apple, would be legally
bound to offer more payment methods alternative to ApplePay. Google and Android would be just as affected. Operating systems, softwares and applications on devices need to be “deletable” and “replaceable” by alternatives. Apple claimed that “some provisions of the DMA will create unnecessary privacy and security vulnerabilities for our users” and Google expressed that, „while we support many of the DMA’s ambitions around consumer choice and interoperability, we’re worried that some of these rules could reduce innovation and the choice available to Europeans.” Another issue society has been increasingly facing is the high-speed spreading of false information, hate speech, conspiracies, and polarization. The idea that the algorithmic spread of information could potentially lead to real and atrocious consequences is worrying. In a health crisis, such as COVID-19, algorithms can have a direct effect on how society responds to changes. Information can not and should not be limited as such, but there is something inherently wrong with keeping the horizons of users limited to what is already known to them.
content, facing the cognitive dissonance of being given two sets of the respectively exclusive information, and being motivated to research the question at hand, they are kept in their bubble of ideology and disinformation. Changes necessary revolve around privacy, safety, competition and honesty of big tech. The stakes are high in a world that is led by technology, a world and reality that takes place via technology. It is out of question how much technology facilitates and enriches our lives. Nevertheless, we need to be aware that we are moving on new grounds. Our realities have extended into the technological realm. We must be aware of the seriousness of “tech reality” and treat it as such. Tech is an ocean of possibilities. Let’s make sure nobody drowns in it!
Take any vulnerable person who is given an easy explanation for their misery in a video showing conspiracy-based content. They might not be fully aware of the nature of conspiratorial thinking. Instead of possibly encountering opposing 23
C O U N C I L O F T H E E U R O P E A N U N I O N & E U R O P E A N PA R L I A M E N T
The GIG economic times for the EU: on our way to a more socially proactive Union By Anna Navaro Bullo Thirty years have gone by since the city where we find ourselves, Maastricht, witnessed the birth of the European Union (EU), bringing with it Union citizenship and its guaranteed rights. The establishment of the EU as one voice of cooperation between European states was a groundbreaking international agreement on a continent that, historically, was not very used to teamwork. All of a sudden, a European identity started to emerge alongside an increasingly integrated market and a new reality of rights and duties for EU citizens. The EU constitutes, in the history of the European continent, an achievement in terms of interstate harmony, citizen wellbeing and economic progress. Despite such statements being always contentious, the positive outcomes of the EU have been increasingly visible across Europe. Yet, directly seeing the benefits of the Union as infallible would be too fast of an assessment. Let me dive into this. Despite the overarching successes of continental peace and economic integration, the latter having allowed less economically prosperous countries to benefit from increasing investment and trade, vast socioeconomic differences are still latent among Member States. Cohesion is 24
anything but an easy journey for countries with diverse historic, economic and social structural traits. Such diversity makes up the uniqueness of the EU, but also its arduous pursuit of consensus. Let’s try to make sense of the Union’s alleged achievements. Is the functioning internal market one? Are the four freedoms a more relevant achievement? What about the monetary union? And the existence of European elections, the role of the EU institutions or the legal protection offered by the progressively developed Union law? The often silent omnipresence of the European Union is one of the reasons why making sense of it as an entity affecting our daily lives can be challenging. This often makes it harder to believe that the Union is actually more than a mere economic project of a few profit-driven people in formal attire. In this sense, building up an institutional social dimension has long been the core challenge the EU faces, implying a long way ahead before it becomes an enjoyable achievement. Globally though, economies until now driven by liberalized markets and little attention to its societal consequences are heading towards more socially conscious systems. The European Union
is no exception. Letting the market be by deregulating it and compensating its flaws is part of the past, actively boosting a social economy starts to be the leading tendency of the EU. The ‘socially frigid economism’ of the EU started to transform with the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and its wider social focus, followed by the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) eight years later and a recent Action Plan to implement the latter. For those not familiarized with it, the EPSR was born under the Commission’s initiative precisely to materialize and expand the social dimension of the EU. This apparent interest of the EU in becoming a more socially active entity is not arbitrary but a reaction to the dynamic economic and social changes brought about 30 years ago by globalization and increasing digitalisation. These have changed the way we live, consume and p ro m i n e n t l y the way we work. Labor markets have undergone significant changes in the recent
decades, often not in favor of workers themselves. Lowwaged and low-skilled jobs have dramatically increased. Sustaining these, the gig economy stands out as the sector that has transformed the nature of global labor markets and the traditional notion of a worker not necessarily for the good. Noémi is twenty two years-old. She worked for an online fooddelivery platform in Maastricht for five months until she realized she could find a better paid, safer and less algorithmicallydependent job. Platform labor has become the heart of gig economies. These are temporary jobs where independent workers are hired for a shortterm commitment. While this does not look too bad on paper, reality has proven that the gig economy needs regulation as employees have fallen into a trap of unprotection and lack of basic labor rights. The why is simple. Employers claim not to be employers as the workers are in principle selfemployed, making it hard to derive accountability from the company to protect workers’ rights and ensure proper working conditions. And while gig workers span across m a n y economic services, food delivery
has been one of the most distinguished. Hastily increasing in recent years, food delivery platforms relied upon 28 million workers across the EU by the end of 2021. Innovative, (arguably) needed, but above all unre-gulated. Thus, when the boom of digital platform labor started unveiling the poor working conditions and scarce protection workers in the sector have been subject to, Member States were forced to respond. Yet, they enjoy a cautious discretion that results in a jeopardized and divergent response to a pan-European problem. This shows that the lack of a regulatory framework at EU level concerning platform employers of the gig economy may result in workers risking their basic rights in a region of the world that claims to stand for social justice before economic profit. Going back to the Union’s achievements, it is easy to see such a reality likely to undermine a few of them. To begin with, during Noémi’s job interview, the company never clarified what her working status was, whether she was entitled to a minimum wage, the type of social protection she could receive or advice on the challenges she would be facing as a rider. Once involved, she saw herself immersed in a gamified job where an algorithm allocated the orders she needed to cover and rewarded her according to her fulfillments. If she was too slow, she missed the order and thus lost the ‘bonus’, but also her time and energy. Even if she was fast enough, Noémi sometimes faced customers who did not always treat her respectfully and the company didn’t have her back. If she did not receive any orders, she waited for an
unspecified amount of time at the mercy of the algorithm’s will until an order popped up in the system. Regardless how short the waiting time was, that time was never paid. When it comes to the ‘flexibility’ the company boasted about, the reality was working shifts she was forced to take. When orders popped up from Kanne, in Belgium, she crossed a border she was barely aware of, making an already complicated job even more legally complex. Who would have dealt with an accident or a crime against her in that situation? This uncertainty and loss of agency is not where it ended either. Noémi, like many in the gig economy, had to bear all the costs of the vehicle, the risks of having an accident and dealing with customers herself, not being afforded the regular protections of an employee in other sectors. The criteria to be an employee in the Netherlands diverges from that of other Member States, making the employment relationship a gray legal sphere where companies can easily take advantage of their employees. Being an employee implies working under someone else’s authority and regulation in exchange for remuneration. Is an algorithmic regulation of the job sufficient to guarantee accountability of exploitation by these companies? Why is a food delivery company that operates across borders subject to national legislation and not to one at the EU level? These loopholes through which companies such as Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Thuisbezorgd and other platforms make their ways lead the gig economic times of the EU. Action at European level is thus justified to ensure the safety, protection and stability of 25
workers. While the Commission took some time, by the end of 2021 it drafted a Directive aiming to regulate platform labor and avoid the case-by-case nature of dealing with the issue. Specifically, the Directive would ensure the right employment status of platform workers, a fair and accountable algorithmic management with an increased traceability and transparency of developments in the sector. So does this imply the EU is doing enough to protect Union workers? The Directive might be a steady protocolary step to start solving the problem, but the procedural burdens it needs to face until it becomes effective might not play in anyone’s favor. It can take up to two years for the proposal to be approved. But that’s not all, approval implies another two years of margin for Member States to transpose it to national law, let alone the discretion they enjoy in the way they implement the Directive. This lengthy and slow-paced process EU legislation needs to go through tends to restrain the overall effectiveness of the action. If we consider the urgent situation of platform workers as of today and envisage a worstcase scenario of 4 years until the Directive is fully implemented across the EU, the problem is clear. Time is a luxury the EU cannot afford, in current but also in future challenges posed to the labor market. Arguably, the EU’s reactive, rather than proactive, attitude towards crisis solving may result in the undermining of millions of workers’ rights. Fortunately, resorting to faster ways to get things done outside of the usual procedures do exist, by using delegated acts that modify existing legislation, for example. Yet, difficulties tend to flourish from the same root: 26
the consensus-driven nature of the EU where agreement between counterparts is another high-priced luxury for the entity. Therefore, if looking beyond legislative choices, the EU should and is able to adopt a more proactive stance that transforms platform work into a democratic, fair, and inclusive sector. In this sense, the EU may start considering new ways to promote, via public funding and support, alternative platforms based on cooperative business models and clear status of employment. At the same time, Member States should soon recognise that working for common social goals is essential amidst the integration of their economies. By doing so, they will voluntarily seek faster legislative cohesion and further cooperation in social domains, which aligns after all with the genuine objectives the EU pursues. It is then the turn of both to act in harmony so as to give a sustainable solution to the flaws of the gig economy, yet it is largely the task of the EU to restructure its priorities and become a more proactive social institution rather than a mere servant of the single market.
Listen Now. the MD Podcast
available on
27
W E L C O M E TO E U R O M U N 2 022 !
Meet the Secretariat and Organising team!
Secretary-General and Conference Manager
Maria Elena Tsitsiloni
Deputy Secretary-General Olivia Lindell
Registrations and Logistics
Under Secretary-General Julia Stöblen
Team
Laila Tello, Mariam Hatem, Sun Min (Leae) Lee, Hannah Schiefer, Emily Beth Milne Bretón, David Čurilla
Socials
Under Secretary-General Lea Röller
Team
Federico Durante Mangoni, Claire Trinquet, Tran Nhat Vy, Henrik Peuker, Faith Ellson, Carolina Leon Santiago
28
Academics
Under Secretary-General Darius Kölsch
Team
Winona Kamphausen, Leire de Lopez Garcia, Jonas Vetter, Anna Medvedová, Krithik Rock, Cecilia Durante, Matilde Ribetti, Marina Alcaraz Ortega, Lucie Denocin
Marketing and Communications
Under Secretary-General Eszra Brouwer
Team
Amber Laureina van Eden, Beatriz Santos Mayo, Sophie Draeger, Marie Sophie Boute, Lisa Marlene Krapp
Finance and Fundraising
Under Secretary-General Camillo Schmidt
Team
Raquel Cubeles Ollé, Beatrice Vinaccia
About EuroMUN Since its first edition in 2008, EuroMUN has become one of the most prestigious MUN conferences in Continental Europe. In the previous years, the conference has hosted up to 400 delegates from over 67 different countries. It is subject to 380 days of careful planning by 40 organisers. Building upon 12 years of experience, it provides participants with four days filled with debates and networking events. EuroMUN has established itself has a conference of academic excellence through high-quality debates on the most relevant topics. The conference hosts 12 committees, such as the United Nations Security Council, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, European Parliament and Crisis, thus covering a wide range of prevailing topics. The committees are divided into four levels of difficulty, ensuring all delegates have an opportunity to challenge and improve themselves through our debate. 29
K N O W YO U R WAY A R O U N D M A AST R I C H T
EuroMUN Socials Day 1 (Thursday, 5th May): Club Night
Location: Rebelle Maastricht (Kesselskade 43, 6211 EN) Time: 20:00-03:00 *Doors close at 22:00 Day 2 (Friday, 6th May): 1) Scavenger Hunt Route: see the next page Time: 19:00-21:15 2) Drinks at D’n Hiemel Location: D’n Hiemel (Sint Bernardusstraat 24A, 6211 HL) Time: 20:00-02:00 Day 3 (Saturday, 7th May): Gala Night Location: Ipanema (Avenue Ceramique 250, 6221 KX) Time: 20:00-02:00 *Doors close at 21:30
30
31
LO C A L T I P S A N D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
Our Favourite Places in Maastricht De Gouveneur
Boschstraat 105a, 6211 AW Maastricht If you are looking for a place to enjoy a great quality beer and like having options, this is the bar for you! Offering more than 300 special beers to choose from their menu, you are sure to find the perfect beverage for your unique taste! If you are not a beer connoisseur, this might sound overwhelming, but you shouldn’t worry too much as the friendly staff in this bar will be happy to recommend the best beer for your personal preferences.
Peter‘s Irish Pub
Kleine Gracht 40-42, 6211 CB Maastricht
Situated in one of the busiest squares of Maastricht, this Irish pub will satisfy every Irish craving you could have. Its authentic decoration, cosy atmosphere and welcoming staff will allow you to enjoy a great Guinness, an Irish whisky or a slice of authentic Shepherd’s pie with no need to hop on a plane! In addition, what makes this place so special, is its efforts to host various activities in the evenings, such as karaoke nights, pop quizzes or the possibility to watch live sports events with some friends.
Pizzeria Piano B
Tongersestraat 25, 6211 LL Maastricht This authentic Italian pizza place is perfectly suited for a small break. While bringing Italy to the Netherlands it offers delicious Pizza takeaway. It is said to be the best Pizza in the Netherlands and close to anything you can get in Italy. The takeaway is not a downside, we love to sit on the city wall or in the neighbouring park. The staff is super friendly. For our Italian speaking friends “regà andateci è buonissima.”
PATTY’N BUN
Sint Pieterstraat 50, 6211 JP Maastricht
People are referring to the Burgers as being the best they have ever had. If you are a Burger and Fast Food lover, you will not regret going there. Most dishes are handmade. Juicy burgers, beautifully cooked meat and flavorful cheese.
32
Cato by Cato
Stenenbrug 9A, 6211 HP Maastricht
A tiny restaurant serving the best food in Maastricht when it comes to price and quality. You can get a huge meal with various bases and even more toppings. Definitely recommended to students who need affordable and delicious food to go! Very friendly people.
With Love Burrito
Markt 4, 6211 CH Maastricht
A cute place at the Market with excellent burritos. Their burritos are filled with a lot of delicious fillings so you will be full after one burrito for sure! They have some places to sit outside, where you can enjoy the weather or take them away. The staff is also super friendly!
Café Rosé
Bogaardenstraat 43, 6211 SN Maastricht
It is a cute bar located in the city centre. It is open every Friday and on the weekend from 17:00 till 01:00, and it is a great place to just hang out and drink with your friends. They host song festival evenings, drag competitions, film evenings, and special evenings just for students. Very local and friendly people and it is quite cheap too!
Möge Tee
Wycker Brugstraat 57, 6221 EB Maastricht The best spot in the entire city to get your bubble tea! Besides serving milk tea, fruit tea, and cheese tea, they also have super tasty cakes and fluffy pancakes. The place is also super aesthetic, and the staff is really friendly. It is also open till 19:00, so you can get boba for dinner, I won’t judge. ;)
Café Zondag
Wycker Brugstraat 42, 6221 ED Maastricht
Café Zondag is the place to be in Wyck. Basically, you can do everything there, from breakfast, brunch, lunch, snacks, dinner, or even a good cocktail. On the menu, you can find, original dishes, and vegan choices - all in an offbeat and trendy atmosphere. Very positive points: it’s open until 3:00 on Thursdays and Fridays, and prices are super affordable, they even make delicious gin and tonics for 7€! 33
BEHIND THE SCENES
About UNSA Maastricht
For 15 years, UNSA has been contributing to enriching student life in Maastricht. It has become a prominent international student association using the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations as a steady guide on pushing forward together for a better future and positive impact. UNSA Maastricht consists of 300+ students, all from different faculties and study programs. UNSA takes pride in its diversity, as members join us from all different walks of life. This is what makes us truly unique and a safe, inclusive space for all. We allow students to network for their future careers and make lifelong connections with like-minded people. People who all strive for a positive future and believe in their capacity to contribute to global improvement. UNSA is structured in a way that allows its members to truly reap a range of benefits. Want to join a Model UN debate and learn more not only about international politics but public speaking? You got it! Want to read articles produced by our talented writers? You got it! Want to volunteer both locally and internationally? Once again, you can with UNSA! We have established a total of seven diverse teams, all offering unique experiences in different fields. Members can become active in either Marketing, Events, Journal, Development, Delegations, External Affairs, or EuroMUN.
TEAM Editors-in-Chief Peter Pelzer Brendan Hogan
Sarbani Bag Simon Wirtz Valentina Giolli
Editorial Board Charelle Abdallah Dan Edwards Marence Jurgens Paloma Pitsillides
Art director and Head of the Marketing Committee of the UNSA Maastricht Emili Stefanova
Writers (in alphabetical order) Ana Navarro Bullo Anahita Lotfollahzadeh Anthi Likitsakos Brendan Hogan Lee-Ann Lichtenberger Leilani Radaideh Jonathan Wijayaratne Mercure Libbrecht Gourdet Paula Nörr Roo Read
Jonathan Wijayaratne Juliette Bourahla Jyoti Eberle Lilian Elisabeth Giebler Nina van der Goes Phyllis Spaeh EuroMUN is made possible by
Co-head of the Marketing Committee of the UNSA Jyoti Eberle Graphic designers (in alphabetical order) Ajla Sijercic Anna La Placa Emili Stefanova Emma Sophie ter Hoeve Helena Eckstein Jan David Gläßner
EuroMUN and the Maastricht Diplomat are powered by
Copyrighted 2022
Do34 you want to stay up to date with the conference proceedings? Are you interested in what is going on in the other committees? Follow around our press corps and learn all the details during EuroMUN 2022! Visit www.maastrichtdiplomat.org/euromun or scan the QR code below.
34
Schedule Thursday, 5th May 09:00-09:30 09:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 10:30-10:45 10:45-11:00 11:00-11:15 11:15-11:30 11:30-11:45 11:45-12:00 12:00-12:15 12:15-12:30 12:30-13:00 13:00-13:15 13:15-13:30 13:30-14:00 14:00-14:15 14:15-14:30 14:30-15:00 15:00-15:15 15:15-15:30 15:30-15:45 15:45-16:00 16:00-16:30 16:30-17:00 17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00 18:00-18:30 18:30-19:00 19:00-19:30 19:30-20:00 20:00-21:00 21:00-21:15 21:15-21:30 21:30-22:00 22:00-23:00 23:00-00:00 00:00-01:00 01:00-02:00 02:00-03:00
Group A
Group B
Registrations
Workshops
Friday, 6th May
Saturday, 7th May
Group A Group B Group A Group B Group A Committee Committee Committee Committee Session 2 Session 2 Session 6 Session 6 Committee Session 10 Break Break Committee Committee Session 3 Break Break Session 7 Break Committee Committee Committee Session 3 Session 7 Session 11
Lunch
Opening ceremony
Melissa Fleming
Committee Session 1
Sunday, 8th May
Lunch
Committee Lunch Session 4
Lunch
Group B Committee Session 10
Break Committee Session 11
Committee Session 8
Lunch (take-away) & debrief
Break Break Committee Committee Session 5 Break Break Session 9 Committee Committee Session 5 Session 9
Closing ceremony
Committee Committee Session 4 Session 8
Debrief
Debrief
Debrief
Club night
Doors close (22:00)
D’n Hiemel
Scavenger hunt
Gala night Noctem gloria Doors close (21:30)
35