LAYOUT EDITOR- ELISA HANGRAPHICS EDITOR- STEPHANIE SONG

MANAGING EDITOR- KRISTINE OAKASSISTANT EDITOR- EUNICE LEE

LAYOUTJAY CHUNG

EUGENE KIMJASMINE PARK

GRAPHICSAMY CHOISEAN KIM

LINDA PARKEUNA SUN

WINSTON YOO

REPORTERSJOHN KIM

SANGWON KIMBONA KOOJESSI KOO

ELIZABETH SONGHELEN SONG

MILTON YOONJONATHAN YUN

ADVISORMS. CAROLYN BROWN

CARTOONISTSDANIEL LEE

JEANNE HAN

STAFF PAGESTAFF2

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF- JAIMI KIM & STACY YUN

The Six-Party Talks committe article in yesterday’s issue was wrongly attributed to Sangwon Kim. It was actually written by Helen Song. We stand corrected.

COLUMNS 3

When historians first dis-covered the Babylonian law code—the Code of Ham-murabi, which dates back to 1760 BCE—they associated it with the principle of retali-ation, better known as the principle of “an eye for an eye”.

For instance, if an in-dividual named Balthasar murdered Abednago’s daugh-ter, Abednago had the right to murder Balthasar’s—as long as Balthasar and Abed-nago were members of the same social class, of course.

Centuries later, Mahatma Gandhi—who today is still considered to be one of the most accomplished pioneers of nonviolent protest—com-pletely undermined King Hammurabi, asserting that “an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind”.

So who is more correct, the king of one of the great-est ancient civilizations in

human history, or the for-mer leader of the modern day’s movement for peace?

While this is not to say that Hammurabi’s Code was too radical with its measures of punishment to be effective (you have to give him credit, he did create one of the ear-liest legislative codes in hu-man history), vengeance does not resolve crises, especially in a world where countries now threaten to use nucle-ar missiles on each other.

Our grandparents weren’t wrong when they said that two wrongs don’t make a right; re-venge only leads to continued rifts between two enmities. Consider Hitler’s decision to bomb London civilians during World War II to avenge Brit-ain’s bombing mission in Ber-lin. Although Hitler disrupted social stability in London, Britain eventually retaliated in the Battle of Britain, and the

two regimes continued to fight until Germany was forced to surrender in 1945. At the end of the day, the war cost mil-lions of lives and led to hostili-ties between nations that in-tensified during the Cold War.

Or consider Voldemort’s attempts to gain revenge on the Wizarding World for his childhood hardships in Harry Potter: he not only had to go through the pains of dividing his soul into sev-en, but was killed, and left behind a mass of trauma-tized witches and wizards.

You don’t jump off a cliff because your friend jumps off a cliff. So you don’t take your friend’s eye because he ripped your eyeballs out of their sockets. Gandhi re-ally meant it when he said “an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”

By EUNICE LEE

By ELIZABETH SONG THE PRESIDENT OF THE GAJenn Kim, President of the General Assembly (GA), shares her likes and dislikes about MUN.1. What is your MUN pet peeve?As a chair, my pet peeve is delegates who don’t pay atten-tion, fall asleep or don’t follow instructions. Another thing that really annoys me is when the microphone sometimes makes weird sounds that could really distract the entire conference. In addition, for our forum, we can’t read the placards of the delegates in the back because the light is shining on them, so it’s really hard to call on them. It’s re-ally annoying, and I felt bad for them since we had to call them by how they were dressed, not by their names.

2. What do you like most about MUN?This year has been my favorite year because I got to choose the issues. I was interested in issue 1, and it was surpris-ing to find out that our key speaker’s entire committee was related to the ICT and spreading computers to underdevel-oped countries. It was a positive coincidence. It’s also great to see students from different schools and get to know each

other. MUN is a social event where you meet new people and make new experiences.

3. What do you not like about MUN?I don’t like waking up at five to get here but it’s part of the chair’s role for MUN. I really don’t like it when some of the resolutions lack a lot of content because it gets hard to debate those resolutions.

4. I don’t like it when my delegates…Sleep. During lobbying, a few of my delegates went outside to the couch to sleep. It was embarrassing and frustrating for me. I understand that lobbying can be a tiring process, but it was disrespectful.

5. I like it when my delegates…Send me notes, asking me to clarify things about their resolutions. It shows they are interested in debate and want to know more, and I’m glad that I can help.

POINT of INTEREST4

SEOMUN has always been at the Coex Convention Cen-ter, but because of the G20 Summit, the location of the conference has moved to Sung-kyunkwan University this year, creating both advantages and disadvantages for delegates.

The modification posed difficulties for delegates whose houses were far from the uni-versity.

“I live in Bundang so it takes a long time to get here,”

said Michelle Lee, delegate of Australia. “We rode the sub-way and taxi but the taxi driv-er didn’t know where to go so we had a lot of trouble getting here.”

However, for Amy Lee, ad-visor of IAED, the shift was not uncomfortable at all.

“I think Sungkyunkwan University is nearer because my school is near Myong-dong,” said Amy. “I like here better because there are desks

and it is more organized.”Another problem that del-

egates encountered as a re-sult of the change in location was finding their respective rooms.

“The walk up the hill was kind of hard,” said Tommy Hu, delegate of France. “There were two hallways and the floors were really confusing. Walking all over the place to find my room was really tiring.”

Despite the inconveniences

Sungkyunkwan University brought about, the new venue was more appropriate for host-ing SEOMUN.

“Sunkyunkwan University has an academic atmosphere,” said Sa-bin Hong. “Compared to COEX that is filled with places to play, Sungkyunkwan University seems more like a place to study because there are students and professors ev-erywhere.”

By ELIZABETH SONG

By STACy yUN AND JEANNE HAN

IN THE DELEGATES’ HEADS

takes place in unfamiliar venueSEOMUN

By JEANNE HAN

POINT of INTEREST 5

updated mun glossaryChair: A piece of furniture you sit on. Come on, you saw this one coming...

Lobbying: Taking a cof-fee break in the lobby of the building.

Secretariat: A coalition of office secretaries.

Co-submitters: Cheer-leading squad.

Position Paper: Other-wise known as No Sleep To-night.

Placard: If raised higher, will start glowing neon green. Or so you hope.

Advisor: Someone whose presence signifies that you should start making some speeches.

Floor: Stage.

Follow-up: A way to make up for having been em-barrassed.

stretch your

stress awayBy JOHN kIm

Debating, listening, or even sitting can be an arduous task. If one keeps sit-ting for a long period of time, it is likely that one will have stiff muscles.

These simple stretches will help you relax while you prepare your

killer speeches.By STEpHANIE SONG

By STEpHANIE SONG By STEpHANIE SONG By STEpHANIE SONG

At exactly 9:00, delegates took their seats and exchanged nervous glances. With many delegates new to MUN, a sense of excitement was in the air.

“Delegates, please take your seats. The debate will start at 9:22 sharp, and now I will roll call,” said Viv-ian Lee, the President Chair.

The opening speeches started as soon as all of the delegates were present and voting. They wished each other good luck before the debate went into action.

“The delegate of Argentina wishes to have a memorable conference and strongly urges all member nations to openly share information and find so-lutions,” said Dongyeong Kim, the delegate of Argentina.

Just before the debate be-gan, the Chair announced to the delegates that appro-priate attire must be worn.

“To remind delegates, all boys must wear a tie with

their suits. Also, converse is not considered as prop-er attire,” said Vivian Lee, the President of the Chair.

After that short interrup-tion, they kicked off with the debate. The first issue they debated on was enhancing environmental supervision in regards to the trade liberaliza-tion and market integration in the Americas. To propose a resolution, the delegate of Ice-land walked up to the podium.

“Though the agenda states ‘market integration,’ the del-egate of Iceland believes that sudden liberalization could bring more problems,” said Chris Kim, the delegate of Iceland. “Thus, safeguard measures along with politi-cal and environmental so-lutions will be proposed.”

Shortly after the speech, Point of Infor-mation (POIs) followed.

“Does the delegate of Ice-land realize that the govern-

ment will be involved in this act of enhanc-ing environmental supervision?” said Bo-rim Yoon, the delegate of United Kingdom.

In response to the delegate of United Kingdom’s POI, the delegate of Iceland re-plied and put his mouth to the microphone.

“Yes, he does rec-ognize that fact and will like to mention the fact that it is also men-tioned in the resolution as well,” replied Chris.

As ordered by the Chair in the be-ginning, the debate lasted for 60 minutes, with all delegates expressing their opinions and voices.

In the end, the resolution failed to pass, but the Chair complimented the delegate of Iceland for his hard work.

“As to end the conference for today, I wanted to give more time for the delegate of Iceland because the debate was very heated and intense. Good job everyone!” said Vivian Lee, the ECOSOC president.

COMMITTEE6Debate on whaling continues despite minor disruptionsBy JONATHAN yUN

The distraction that the late placards caused was overpow-ered by the intensity of the debate on the issue of whaling in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Advocates of Ja-pan and Australia questioned the ambassador of Japan.

Christina Hahn, the am-bassador of Japan from Six Party Talks (SPT), attempted to defend her nation by ar-guing that the accusations from Australia are unjust.

“Japan feels that there is in-justice coming from Australia as well as other western na-tions that are using negative propaganda to persuade the opinion of the public,” said Christina. “The international community is not against whaling, but rather a selective few of western nations are.”

The ambassador of Ja-pan explained that the del-egates were biased in that

they had a stronger tendency to support Western me-dia over Japanese [BLAH].

“Western media controlled by strong western states state that these whales are en-dangered,” said Christina.

According to Christina, whaling is underrepresented in the international com-munity because the western media emphasizes the “cute-ness of whales”, thus creat-ing a misleading image that hazes the issue on whaling.

“For example, a short news [report from Australia] showed a baby whale being [harpooned], creating a mis-leading image that all [inci-dences of] Japanese whaling [are] inhumane,” said Christi-na. “In reality, Japanese whal-ers take caution to not attack baby whales and to keep whal-ing as humane as possible.”

Although the delegates

were engaged in proactive debate, the late placards inter-rupted the flow of the discus-sion at certain times. Accord-ing to James Ham, Deputy Assistant President, the guards at this university would not let the buses in. Therefore, deliverers had to walk to each committee to hand them out.

Despite the minimal dis-ruption caused by the late

placards, the chair was able to appreciate the debate so far.

“Both sides have presented witnesses with fruitful tes-timonies,” said Peter Park, registrar of ICJ. “Their cases deserve merit. However, only time and evidence will de-cide which side will win.”

By SEAN kIm

ECOSOC delegates work cooperativelyBy BONA kOO

By SEAN kIm

The Special Conference commenced its debate on the issue of instilling a long-term financial aid plan for disaster-stricken nations with a reso-lution submitted by Kevin Han, the delegate of Peru.

Co-submitted by 22 other delegates, the resolution at-tracted much support; many of the points of informa-tion directed towards Peru spoke for the resolution.

“I believe this will work the best for it supports education, which informs them of what to do after being stricken by natural disasters in Operative Clause 6,” said Ayaka Nomu-ra, delegate of Senegal, “Also, this resolution mentions that NGOs give financial services, which is what countries that experience natural disasters need, such as by planting trees.”

Delegates from disaster-stricken countries especially

encouraged the committee to approve the resolution.

“Because Djibouti has been stricken by serious draughts,” said Miho Tanaka, delegate of Djibouti, “this delegate believes that this resolution will help this country by Operative Clause 7, aid of long-term aid groups such as World Water Relief.”

Nevertheless, some del-egates presented concerns

about the resolution’s lack of conciseness and focus. For instance, Bowen Chin, the delegate of France, found Op-erative Clause 6 to be prob-lematic, which stated “setting up long-term educational sys-tems from children to adults.”

“This clause relies too much on NGOs and educa-tion shouldn’t be a priority in aids for disasters,” said Bo-

wen. “This delegate believes that aids should be focused on shelters, food, and structures, and on the peoples’ needs.”

The resolution of the delegate of Peru passed with an overflowing major-ity, 58 delegates voting for.

“[I supported his] resolution because it covered all aspects of providing financial aid,” said Esther Yoon, delegate of Esto-nia. “Such as short term fund-ing from MEDCS and long-term plans, such as education.”

The fact that his resolution passed with an immense ma-jority vote gave Kevin more reasons to celebrate his success.

“I feel honored and proud that the overwhelming ma-jority supported my resolu-tion,” said Kevin. “This is my first main-submitted resolu-tion and it passed; therefore I gained much confidence from this phenomenon.”

COMMITTEE

HR resolution faces gradUal oppositionBy SANGwON kIm

There were oppositions within discussions about vari-ous issues in the Human Rights Council (HR). The committee was divided into three groups, discussing resolutions on three issues. The three main issues were about natural disasters,

sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and poor education.

Many delegates were inter-ested about natural disasters, yet had different viewpoints on how to approach the problem. Kevin Chun, delegate of the Ba-hamas, was occupied into pre-paring susceptible countries by improving necessary facilities.

“We need to educate the young and improve the schools, so when disasters do strike, people will not panic and be conscious of the situation,” said Kevin.

On the other hand, another delegate believed that commu-nication between developed countries and developing coun-tries was essential into lessen-ing the damage of these storms.

“So basically developed nations can easily receive in-formation from satellites and such, and they can cheaply, quickly send information to the countries in dan-ger,” said Eugene Nam, del-

egate of the United Kingdom.Concerning the issue of

STDs, half of the delegates looked positively at organizing a new organization comprised of UN members that would help patients with STDs.

“This program is like an orga-nization that helps people who can’t afford such medication to treat their STDs. It’s sort of like a donation process,” said Jenny Kwon, delegate of Namibia.

Yea Young Koh, delegate of Liechtenstein, believed that rather than forming another or-ganization, the patients should depend on NGOs that are al-ready existent, and cooperate.

“The process would be funding NGOs and hospitals to distribute aid to the most urgent areas first,” said Yea.

The last issue centered on how education was not prevalent in many develop-ing countries, and delegates

had unique ideas on how to approach the problem.

“With the formation of a UN organization called ‘UN-ISTUDY’ to further help the education in these countries by funding and development,” said Jessie Headrick, delegate of the Republic of Korea.

On the other hand, Tobie Kim, the delegate of Brazil, focused on enforcing nonvio-lence within schools to make them safer, and make it a bet-ter learning environment.

“First of all, Afghanistan amended a law in which any kids over the age 18 cannot touch weapons, and so prohibition within schools with no weap-ons within schools will be cru-cial to nonviolence” said Tobie.

Although delegates had dif-ferent methods of approach-ing the subject, they had the common goal of searching for the best solution available.

By STEpHANIE SONG

Special Conference zeroes in on first issueBy mILTON yOON

By LINDA pARk

7

8 FOCUS

All around Sungkyunkwan University, delegates, chairs and advisors alike cried for access to the Internet. The Tech team was in a frenzy, rushing around the cam-pus to respond to these calls.

“To solve the internet prob-lem for Mac users, we had to get the IP addresses of every Mac,” said Jonathan Kim, Co-President. “And even more, the Business building only had NESPOT connections, so we

needed to buy them a NESPOT ID, Since the internet around here was designed for Win-dows, there was a big problem as the operating systems of the computers were all different.”

The tech team was the team responsible for all technology-related matters. Before the conference, the team had a number of tasks to accomplish for a smooth three days at both Korea International School and Sungkyunkwan University.

“Before the conference, we had many things to ac-complish, such as designing banners, creating the official logo, and creating the web-site for SEOMUN 2010,” said Jonathan Kim, Co-President.

During the conference, the Tech and Design Team was re-sponsible for ensuring the mics were functioning in each room. Members also had to make sure that the Secretary Gener-al and Deputy Secretary Gen-

eral were not overloaded with work, and that the admin staff was doing their job properly.

Although the tasks were tedious at times, the team tried to make most of their MUN experience, and felt that they had certain ad-vantages over other del-egates during the conference.

“The best is that we don’t have to debate! There’s no re-searching involved with the tech team,” said Jonathan.

Tech team to the rescueBy SANGwON kIm

FOCUS 9

Cell phones are a must-need gadget for teenagers for communicating with their friends and family. Laptops are an extremely useful tool, espe-cially for delegates who have to construct their resolutions. While both are helpful to del-egates, the truth is that the electro-magnetic waves that such electronic products emit can be harmful to the body.

The waves produced by cell phones may increase one’s chances of getting can-cer. Swedish researchers have come out with an experimental result which states that there is

a 240 percent increased risk in malignant tumor on the side of the head where the phone is held. A study from the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that electro-magnetic emissions can short-en the lifespan of humans.

Waves from laptops, on the other hand, have a slightly dif-ferent effect on human health. Because people usually rest their laptops on their laps, the electromagnetic waves might lead to infertility or birth de-fects. Although not common, there is also the possibility of the electromagnetic waves

causing premature cell divi-sion. This means that the cell could be divided before the DNA is correctly established, which would lead to mutation.

Despite this long list of harmful effects, some del-egates still believe that the value of cell-phones and laptops outweighs them.

“Technology is important to [delegates] because they need to research and edit their resolutions when merging,” said Yerin Kim, delegate of Finland for the Special Con-ference (SPC). “Even if there are actually negative effects,

to us, using laptops for our work is far more important.”

Across the globe, more and more health professionals as well as regular people are start-ing to be concerned in this is-sue. Some manufacturers have even started to make products that prevent the electromag-netic waves’ negative effect on people. One example is a laptop pad, which people can place below the laptop to prevent direct contact that will reduce the amount of electromagnetic waves that reach the body.

The cons of electronic

productsBy mILTON yOON

**The Republic of Korea has entered the chat****USA has entered the chat**

Republic of Korea: Hi delegate of USA! USA: Hi delegate of R.O.K :D USA: I never knew anyone would be online during the conferences! Shame on you!Republic of Korea: Well you are too! (:USA: Anyways, how are the G20 preparations going?Republic of Korea: Oh, they’re going well (:USA: I heard it’s going to be held at Coex.Republic of Korea: Yup, it is! Republic of Korea: SEOMUN is supposed to be held at Coex, but because of G20 conferences, it had to move to SKK University.USA: Oh. What do MUN people think about that? Republic of Korea: Some like SKK University better because it’s closer, but some like Coex because it’s closer. I guess it evens out for everyone!USA: BTW, good luck on your opening speech (:Republic of Korea: You too!!! I’m so nervous though :SUSA: I’m kind of scared of the Chair XD Republic of Korea: same here! Hope I don’t get caught by the admin staff. Aren’t we supposed to be listen-ing to others with their speeches?USA: Yeah, but I don’t understand anything they’re talking about haha.Republic of Korea: I think I g2g! Before I get caught by the admin staff.USA: kk cya (: I’ll pass a note to you.Republic of Korea: OK! TTYL!

**The Republic of Korea has left the chat****USA has left the chat**`

{A TYPICAL MUN CONVO

{By BONA kOO

COMMITTEE10Security Council stands d i v i d e dBy JESSI kOO

Debate in the Security Council (SC) commenced with the delegates going over the resolution clause-by-clause, beginning with the reform of the SC with special emphasis on the admission of new per-manent members. Throughout the debate, some problems arose in terms of a lack of par-ticipation, conflicting opin-ions, and vagueness.

Regarding operative clause 1 on supernatural unions, Leon Jun, delegate of USA, went up to the podium to state his outlook on the clause.

“Some may ask, ‘why can’t we simply add more non-per-manent or permanent mem-bers?’ The problem is not that simple,” said Leon. “Nations in close proximity may still have great deal of diversity in their opinions. Supernatural unions such as the African union

should be represented in the SC instead of adding all these different nations because they can represent the region as a whole.”

While the Deputy Assis-tant President, Sanhyun Park, asked for any points of infor-mation in the house, delegates did not volunteer to speak.

“The chair encourages the delegates to make some in-quiries on the speech and to participate in the debate. The chair will randomly pick on delegates.”

The chair not only ap-pointed delegates to speak, but also encouraged an open de-bate in which delegates could speak for or against a delegate’s stance on a clause. Despite the lack of participation for clause 1, operative clause 2 brought forth a heated debate in which the countries argued over the

addition of five non-permanent members to the SC.

Angie Lee, delegate of Chi-na, went against the delegate of the United States’ stance of be-ing in favor of the clause.

“Although the delegate of China believes and agrees with the overall idea of this clause, the delegate believes that this clause is very vague in terms of the process of selecting mem-bers,” said Angie. “Who is go-ing to be selected and what are the standards of selecting these new members? The delegate believes that the clause needs to be amended before it can be passed.”

The delegates of France and the Russian Federation were on the same page as the del-egate of China. They agreed that clause 2 was too vague and needed more details and

information in order for it to be passed.

On the other hand, the delegate of the United States strongly opposed the clause and pointed out sub-clauses that addressed the details and problems to the resolution al-ready. He also threatened to use a veto against the resolu-tion which led to the P5 na-tions meeting separately and debating on the issue.

“How can a key idea pass without details?” asked Angie during the P5 moderated cau-cus.

Even among the P5 nations, the problem seemed to revolve around the ambiguity of the clause in the resolution. None-theless, at the end of the debate on operative clause 2, three delegates voted against the clause; thus, it failed to pass.

GA resolution receives high h o m a g eBy JOHN kIm

The first resolution that was debated in the General Assem-bly (GA) argued for the use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in lesser eco-nomically developed countries that need technology to relieve them from their rural state.

“It’s the end of poverty,” said Dayae Jeong, the delegate of Australia and the main-submitter of the resolution. “ICT is a tool, not a solution.”

Many delegates fully sup-ported the resolution. John Kim, the delegate of China, is one of the delegates that stuck with the resolution all the way, and understood that although the resolution may not be per-fect, it is the best one so far.

“The resolution will bring peace and prosperity to the na-tions. The delegate supports the whole resolution,” said John.

Michelle Lee, the del-egate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Laos commended the resolution.

“[The delegate] would like to enthusiastically sup-port this resolution [since] 27% of the nation is un-der poverty,” said Michelle.

Finally, Christine Kim, the delegate of Bangladesh, spon-sored the resolution with high enthusiasm and supported it

until the end. “[The delegate] would like to applaud the delegate of Australia for their resolution,” said Christine.

The supporters of the reso-lution still had to field many questions that other delegates raised, such as whether ICTs should be a first priority when lesser developed countries are also afflicted with the lack of clean water, unstable econo-mies, and outdated technology.

As each question rose, the resolution started to lose support. The delegate of Aus-tralia reminded the com-mittee that “ICTs are for countries that have already dealt with those problems.”

When the resolution was at its lowest point, an unexpected speaker came on the floor. The keynote speaker of the open-ing ceremony, Dr. Paul Jhin,

introduced himself to the floor. Dr. Jhin is the CEO of the

ICT Corporation (ICTC) and a sponsor to United Na-tions. He was amazed by the speeches made and “felt like [he was] back at the U.N.”

“I would like to commend the delegate of Australia and its co-sponsors who spon-sored the resolution” said Dr. Jhin. “The very resolution you are discussing, you are exactly doing what the U.N is discussing. The hunger prob-lems, water problems […]would be enhanced by ICTs.”

After the speech, the del-egates broke into applause and the resolution was back on its track again, if not more sup-ported than before. The delegate of Australia’s resolution was the most resilient one thus far.

By Amy CHOI

BY EUNA SUN

Although advisors and del-egates at first were less will-ing to speak up, they became more active as they discussed the issues. The three issues the Advisory Panel (AP) de-bated were minimizing energy consumption in coordination with expanding energy sup-ply, ameliorating energy pov-erty in Less Economically De-veloped Countries (LEDCs) and promoting the further development of carbon cap-ture and storage (CCS).

Michelle Lee, delegate of Australia, was the second to step up to the podium and of-fer her stance on the issue of combating energy poverty in LEDCs. Michelle called for microfinance, which involves inputting an electric grid sys-tem that can store energy by asking private companies to invest in nations with a lot of potential energy sources.

Michelle also encouraged

donors to sponsor small amounts of money to individual families in LEDCs. The family would get the money as a whole and use it for their businesses. After it gains some profit, it would then give back the loans to the donors.

“[This loaning sys-tem] is efficient as it allows families to get technology to benefit them without having [MEDCs sup-porting them], which is always a good thing,” said Michelle.

Jenny Jang, advisor of the European Union (EU), voiced her support for Michelle’s resolution.

“[The resolution] ad-dresses both small and large-scale solutions to the prob-lem,” said Jenny. “It also has creative ideas and sugges-tions that are regional and practical, and it has proper

subsidies and incentives.”However, Janey Lee,

delegate of USA, op-posed Michelle’s proposal.

“[The resolution] assumes that solar panels and clear ener-gy can be distributed to house-holds on a large scale through the support of microfinance,” said Janey, “But if it was really this easy, all the houses in Seoul would have already started us-ing clean energy, seeing as they are more financially stable.”

Another area of concern was

the exorbitant price of purchasing solar pan-els and wind mills.

“Solar panels, as the previous advisor mentioned, as well as wind mills, are very expensive,” said Soyon Jun, advisor of the United Na-tions Development Program (UNDP). “There is a lack of

incentives for private com-panies to invest their money.”

With 18 votes for, four against and five abstain-ing, the resolution passed.

According to Heejae Choi, Deputy Assistant President of AP, the overall debate was productive and flowed well compared to the beginning.

“The debate went well,” said Heejae. “At first, advisors hesitated to make speech-es, but they participated more actively as time went.”

COMMITTEE 11

Active lobbying in AP leads to effective mergingBy ELIZABETH SONG

ROK and DPRK reach a consensus on Cheonan incident

After the devastating sink-ing of the Cheonanham ear-lier in the year, South Korea (ROK) conducted an investi-gation and proclaimed North Korea (DPRK) as the crimi-nal. However, in this year’s Six Party Talks (SPT), the del-egates decided to find a way to truly discover the cause behind the Cheonan inci-dent and attempt to ease rela-tions between the two Koreas.

This is the third issue of the SPT, the members of which are now reaching a conse-sus in regards to the recent Cheonan sinking. All of the countries’ opinions collided as different countries proposed their stances on the incident.

“It was very intense, as it was a confrontation between ROK and DPRK,” said Josh Kim, del-egate of ROK. “Also, China and Russia were supporting DPRK

while USA was supporting me, so there was some tension.”

Despite the initial clashes, the countries were successfully

able to come to agreement. They decided to let the most neutral and technolgically ad-vanced country among them, Japan, conduct the investi-gation and make an official report by the end of the year.

“Japan wants to be involved in this issue and not just sit

and do nothing,” said Yubin Huh, the delegate of Japan. “Japan’s stance is neutral on this issue and we will be unbi-

ased during the investigation.”DPRK also decided to co-

operate under the conditions that ROK apologizes for falsely accusing them of sinking the Cheonanham and ruining their global reputation as a result. ROK agreed to apologize to some degree for causing confu-

sion and making assumptions.DPRK also demanded

reparations, such as rice or money, from ROK as ROK’s false accusations damaged DPRK’s economy and made them suffer severely as a re-sult. The delegates decided to create a policy where ROK provides DPRK with aid, but to a lesser extent than the former Sunshine Policy.

“Because of ROK’s accusa-tions, DPRK’s economy fell, and they should make up for the loss,” said Sarah Bock, DPRK. “We want the Sunshine Policy to begin again as we have been suffering severe food shortage during the year without it.”

Despite differences in stanc-es, the countries were able to find middle ground that they all agreed on and helped ROK and DPRK work together. ROK and USA put their intial positions aside, which was that DPRK was fully responsible for the Cheonan incident, and gave DPRK a fair opportunity to present their positions as well.

By Amy CHOI

BY HELEN SONG

BY WINSTON YOO

PHOTO COLLAGE12

PHOTO COLLAGE 13

COLUMNS14

By kRISTINE OAk

TODAY’S FASHION TREND: 11/05/2010As participants of SEOMUN continue their conferences, variations on formal wear become more diverse. Yesterday was the classic formal trend but today it seems like a twist was added to the classical.

The formal trend for girls: dressy all the way Simple colored one piece dress or tight skirts For dresses, appropriate but slightly revealing:→Solid black but short, sleeveless, or slit in the back or front

*Another major touch to this dressy look is the trench coat of beige color, or wool coats

The formal trendfor guys:Comfy in formal Black or darkgrey V necksweater→Button down withthe edges in color →Simple andsolid blocked sweater White collared shirt un-derneath the sweater One colored narrow neck tie or the top two buttons of the white shirt unbut-toned Black formal shoes

As the debate progresses into the second day of SEOMUN, delegates focus more on their debate but also their styles. It seems like the dressy look for girls and comfy look for guys are in today.

Show other delegates your passion for fashion. Will you be IN? or will you be OUT?

By SEAN kIm By SEAN kIm

SEARCH FOR SEAN

By LINDA pARk By LINDA pARk

CARTOONS 15

SEOMUNILLUSTRATED

CARTOONS BY:

daniel leejeanne han

d a y

# 2By JEANNE HAN

By JEANNE HAN

By DANIEL LEE

By DANIEL LEE