Vocabulary Recap!

 Hello lovely delegates of NAM! We’re so excited to see you all in March! Until then, we are going to be posting some informative blogs on this site in order to help keep you up to date on your research and explore the topic synopses in more depth. 

Today, we’re addressing some of the key terms of each topic, as it is essential you are familiar with these concepts in order to start formulating solutions. This is intended to help you with the research process, so feel free to just read, or interact with the material provided below:

Topic A: Recovering From and Pursuing Alternatives to Structural Adjustment Programs

• Structural Adjustment Programs - As detailed in the topic synopsis, a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) is an economic policy response meant to counter unexpected crises or shocks in a specific economy, or at least this is what an SAP is intended to achieve. Over time, SAPs are becoming more of a method that nations and governing bodies of the Global North use to control and manipulate the economies of the Global South (a relationship we will explore in a later term). The conditions of these SAPs attempt to shift the economic focus of the Global South to the private sector, a dangerous cycle that allows foreign entities access and control over local economies, taking economic power away from those nations themselves. Typically SAPs are studied from solely an economic perspective. In short, “[this nation] needs money for [this cause], we will give them money if they compromise their economies for our interest… and they really don’t have a choice.” As delegates of NAM, we are asking you to address this issue from a social and humanitarian perspective as well as an economic one. Who is impacted? Are these systems necessary? Are there alternative options? What can we do as delegates to ensure the Global South is receiving necessary aid, but in a sustainable manner? 

• International Financial Institutions - International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are fundamentally recognized as financial institutions supported by one or more collaborating nations, but in reality they are mostly regulating institutions spearheaded by the Global North that force private sector expansion in developing countries. Although these institutions, through the implementation of SAPs, initially intend to correct instances of economic turmoil, IFIs are historically unable to execute the original intentions of their SAPs and tend to overextend their reach into the Global South, sometimes leaving nations worse off than they began. As the current jurisdiction and actions of IFIs continue to threaten the economic stability of the Global South, it is important to address this aspect of the topic heavily in your analysis and solutions. Again, try to look at this from a humanitarian perspective, taking into account the individuals being affected by these large-scale economic decisions. 

• Global North vs. Global South - By means of terminology, the Global North refers to “developed” countries and the Global South refers to “developing” countries, but their relationship is much more complex. One of the greatest questions brought up across a multitude of issues within the realm of international relations is as follows: to what extent should the Global North offer help to the Global South? On the topic of SAPs, have these programs taken intervention too far? This is a question that we hope you will explore further in committee, as “international aid” seems to be a go-to solution without regard for the long-term effects of outside intervention on a nation’s political, social, and economic systems. For instance, although meant to foster economic reconstruction, SAPs force privatization and make way for foreign investment (an ultimate benefit to the Global North), therefore sacrificing the function of the public and informal sectors, threatening the livelihoods and economic stability of many residents. We hope you look into these terms to further understand the complex relationship between the Global North and the Global South, and your role as a delegate of the Non-Aligned Movement to defend the interests of the Global South. 

• Neoliberalism - Neoliberalism, or inescapable Capitalism *gasp*, is the guiding theory we are applying to this topic. As detailed in the synopsis, neoliberal economics interprets all facets of human life and interaction to be enhanced by entrepreneurship. In short, every aspect of human life is turned into a market. In the context of SAPs and their effect on the Global South, this theory demonstrates how economic intervention can inherently hurt developing nations: it prioritizes the potential financial gain from forieng investments over domestic projects, reducing the value of people and organizations to their role as market actors, particularly within the private sector. In an era defined by neoliberal politics and economics, how can your solutions as delegates pull away from the encroachment of these principles?

Topic B: Eradicating Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

• Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - WMD is a broad term encompassing weapons with the potential to “produce in a single moment an enormous destructive effect capable to kill millions of civilians, jeopardize the natural environment, and fundamentally alter the lives of future generations through their catastrophic effects” (See full definition in synopsis). In this committee, we focus on nuclear weapons, one of the most destructive classes of WMDs. Some questions to consider: Despite our primary focus on nuclear weapons, how does the acquisition of nuclear weapons affect the development of other WMDs? What are the costs of a localized nuclear war? When thinking about the costs of nuclear war, consider its local, international, short-term, long-term, economic, political, and human costs.

• Nuclear proliferation - Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons. Horizontal proliferation happens when previously non-nuclear states acquire nuclear weapons, and vertical proliferation refers to the increase in the “size and sophistication” of nuclear arsenals of existing nuclear powers. The two common objectives discussed by the international community are non-proliferation and disarmament. While non-proliferation refers to the prevention of the continued horizontal and vertical spread of nuclear weapons, and allows nuclear powers to keep their nuclear arsenals, disarmament requires the removal of existing nuclear weapons. Think about why such a distinction exists. What are the countries that have an interest in keeping existing nuclear weapons? Why are countries more motivated than others to pursue the total elimination of nuclear weapons? How is the distinction between non-proliferation and disarmament helpful in gauging the progress made by the international community?

• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) - Signed in 1968, the NPT is a landmark treaty that mandates non-proliferation and aims to achieve eventual disarmament. Importantly, the NPT defines a group of countries—the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China—as nuclear-weapon states, the only states that can legitimately possess nuclear weapons. Think about how this legalized international hierarchy may be perceived by non-nuclear states. In addition, the disarmament article (Article VI) states that “each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Consider how effective the NPT would be in driving disarmament.

• Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (The Ban Treaty) - In contrast to the NPT, the Ban Treaty does not make the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear states; it forbids “the development, production, acquisition, possession, transfer, testing, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons” for all states. Consider the following: How does the Ban Treaty signify a shift in norms in the international community? How may this shift, and the Ban Treaty itself, shape the dialogue about and perception of nuclear weapons in nuclear-weapon states?

Are there any key terms or concepts that you would like us to discuss in more detail? If so, let us know in a comment! :)