European Youth Parliament

Im Schuljahr 2004 machte sich ein Team von idealistischen Elftklässlern vom Lessing-Gymnasium Winnenden auf, die Welt zu verbessern (oder so). Diese Seite soll unsere Bemühungen festhalten und auch zukünftigen Deligierten einige Tipps vermitteln. Zunächst einmal eine Übersicht unseres ursprünglichen Teams (in zufälliger Reihenfolge)

Die Teilnahme am European Youth Parliament bedeutete zunächst, dass wir eine Resolution zur Auswirkung der Globalisierung auf die Ärmsten verfassen mussten. Das vorgegebene Resolutionsschema beinhaltet zwei Teile: einige "introductory clauses", in denen Begriffe definiert und die jetzige Situation analysiert werden und einige "operative clauses", in denen konkrete Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der Situation gemacht werden müssen. Es folgt unsere Resolution:

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

On the following question: Globalisation - A threat or an opportunity for the developing world? - How can the EU help ensure that people in developing countries have a meaningful involvement in the free market?

The European Youth Parliament,

  1. Defining
    1. globalization as a process enabling financial and investment markets to operate internationally, largely as a result of deregulation and improved communication and further the process by which a company expands to operate internationally,
    2. poor countries as less developed and economically less advanced countries,
    3. the free market as an economic system that allows supply and demand to regulate prices with as little governmental intervention as necessary,
  2. Realizing that globalisation has already helped to reduce poverty and increase growth rates in a large number of poor countries, but must be restrained to help people from countries that have not yet profited from the effects of globalisation,
  3. Alarmed by the capital flight and lack of investments in developing countries, often caused by bad domestic politics and dictatorships,
  4. Deeply convinced that subsidies and tariffs in general decrease the chances of developing countries in the free market, as they impede free trade, and that public funds spent on subsidies could be spent more wisely,
  5. Observing that poor countries suffer much from environmental pollution such as waste export and climate changes,
  6. Believing that sufficient amounts of clear water and health care are fundamentally necessary,
  7. Recognizing that people in developing countries must be educated and provided with a working social protection system in order to be able to participate in the economic growth by being able to choose more specialized professtions and flexible enough to adapt to the needs of a growing economy,
  8. Fully believing that debt release programmes like the HIPC are essential to make a development possible in the poor and indebted countries,
  9. Noting with satisfaction the sale increase in so called ?certified fair trade goods? within the last years, from which the poor profit more,
  10. Emphasizing that fair-trade products would not, as it is often feared, harm the European economy by providing goods at a much lower cost, due to the higher wages and social expenses together with the lower industrialization and higher transport costs making competition for European producers possible even without tariffs,
  1. Requests so called ?certified fair trade? is to be supported by the introduction of a EU-certificate for ?fair traded? goods, including raw and processed materials, the certification being based on:
    1. minimum prices and wages for laborers to make the poor independent of the world market,
    2. low trade margins without unnecessary intermediate trade, for the actual producer should profit most,
    3. social protection for workers, e.g. safe wages and pensions
  2. Further requests the complete removal of import tariffs on all goods, which are classified as fair-traded,
  3. Approves the reduction and, wherever possible, the complete removal of European export subsidies, as they can harm the economy of developing countries by reducing the probability that products made in those developing countries can compete with European products in their home country,
  4. Calls for a reduction in agricultural subsidies, decreasing superfluous subsidies while leaving in place only those that after further examination prove to be necessary for social and environmental reasons,
  5. Supports the introduction of hygiene, health, sex and general education and inoculation programmes and the building of water purification plants by conveying knowledge and providing financial support,
  6. Encourages European enterprises to establish their factories in developing countries and provides subsidies for these investments under the following conditions:
    1. fair working conditions as defined in 1a/c,
    2. health services for the worker and his family, together with the health education and inoculation programmes mentioned in 5,
    3. education opportunities for workers to enable them to reach for higher positions in their companies, as most workers in developing countries are not sufficiently educated,
    4. social protection also for workers? families, including a schooling opportunity for their children,
  7. Endorses the continuation of the HIPC programme and the separate debt release programmes of the member states,
  8. Urges the use of diplomatic methods and the transfer of economic knowledge in order to help developing countries introduce sensible domestic policies and open their markets wherever possible,
  9. Strongly condemns the discharge of toxic waste in poor countries,
  10. Recommends the endorsement of the conditions of the Kyoto protocol in order to avoid further negative climate changes.


Sehr erstaunt waren wir, als wir die Nachricht von unserer Qualifikation zur nationalen Auswahlsitzung in Dresden bekamen: als eine von 10 Schulen durften wir im Sächsischen Landtag eine weitere Resolution vorstellen und mit den anderen Deligierten auf Englisch und Französisch diskutieren. Es folgte eine zugegebenermaßen anstrengende Zeit, als deren Ergebnis die folgende Resolution entstand:

Motion for a resolution by the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy I

Nuclear technology: high-tech benefits versus global security? Can the EU contribute to controlling and preventing nuclear proliferation?

Submitted by: Lessing-Gymnasium

The European Youth Parliament,

  1. Defining nuclear proliferation as the spread of nuclear weapons as well as the distribution of respective knowledge and materials, both in countries that are already equipped with nuclear weaponry and to countries that are not,
  2. Aware of the danger that non-military technology, in particular nuclear power plants and their waste, might be used for building nuclear weapons,
  3. Convinced that multilateral nuclear disarmament on a global scale is the only possibility to avoid nuclear proliferation in the long run,
  4. Alarmed by the fact that a major network of nuclear trade had not been noticed for years and was only recently uncovered,
  5. Noting with deep concern the case of the nearly-exported rod factory of Hanau,
  1. Urges the UK and France to complete their nuclear disarmament, in order to motivate other nuclear powers to continue and enforce their disarmament programs,
  2. Requests the decommission of nuclear power plants in Europe by levying a tax on nuclear power to support alternative energy,
  3. Calls for support of the IAEA through
    1. extension of their permissions to control the trade in and development of nuclear arms, by means of introducing amendments into the NPT that shall strengthen the IAEA,
    2. encouraging cooperation and information exchange amongst intelligence services, in particular those of the EU members, and the IAEA, in order to more quickly discover and react to the trade in nuclear weapons and affiliated materials wherever countries that have signed the non-proliferation treaty are involved,
  4. Demands the total ban of mini-nukes and so-called ?dirty bombs?, as they dramatically diminish the inhibition threshold of the deployment of nuclear weapons,
  5. Supports the introduction of a new EU authority which shall be both free in its decision and cooperating with the IAEA to control all imports and exports of nuclear material and technical installations, which could be used to construct nuclear weapons of any kind,
  6. Encourages further steps towards a unified and democratic European foreign policy, for unity is of fundamental significance in order to build up a strong alliance that promotes nuclear disarmament worldwide and thus helps to realize points 1-5.


Nachdem der finanzielle Rahmen durch eine Spende des Lions-Clubs und aus Waffelverkäufen gedeckt war, konnte die Reise losgehen - naja, fast...
Einige Probleme waren noch zu überwinden, so zum Beispiel der Ausfall dreier Teammitglieder in mehr oder weniger letzter Minute, für die Regina Rauleder, Marion Eberbach und Ines Hummel einsprangen... oder die Suche nach dem benötigten Lehrer als Begleitung, wozu Herr Baumgärtner schließlich seine Ferien opferte... oder das Problem mit der Deutschen Bahn, die einfach nicht so schnell und so günstig ist, wie man es gerne hätte... aber egal.
Am 2. Juni 2004 waren wir alle in Dresden angekommen und fühlten uns auch mehr oder weniger vorbereitet für das, was da kommen sollte. Ein kurzes Tagebuch:

Mittwoch, 2. Juni; Ankunft in der Jugendherberge mit dem wunderbaren DDR-Charme und Namen "Weltfrieden"; nach Einteilung in 10 verschiedene Delegationen (und damit Trennung unseres Teams) Teambuilding mit den neuen Delegationsmitgliedern (das bedeutet: Gruppenspiele, die Vertrauen schaffen und den Teilnehmern Gruppenstrategien vermitteln)
Fazit: hat Spaß gemacht, und die Gruppendynamik war auch interessant zu erleben

Donnerstag, 3. Juni; Committee Work, das heißt Diskussion zu verschiedenen Themen in den einzelnen Kommittees; am Abend Podiumsdiskussion mit Polit-Prominenz zu den in den Kommittees erarbeiteten Fragestellungen (das ganze wurde weltweit im Deutschlandradio übertragen)
Fazit: war schon anstrengender, aber auch nicht schlecht

Am Freitag und Samstag folgte die Debatte zu den einzelnen Resolutionen im Landtag. Der Ablauf einer solchen Debatte war der folgende:
Das ganze dauert etwa eine Stunde. Für jede Resolution. Es gibt 11 Resolutionen zu debattieren. Muss ich mehr schreiben?
Es folgt die Defence Speech zu unserer Resolution, so entworfen am Vorabend bzw. in der Vor-Nacht, weil Nadine, die die Speech eigentlich hätte halten sollen, krankheitsbedingt nicht mitkonnte:

Ladies and Gentlemen

"The possibility for a nuclear war has never been higher than today". This quote by Muhammad El-Barradai, the president of the International Atomic Energy Agency, should tell us all, that nuclear proliferation is indeed an essential problem.

Please let me explain, why our resolution might help in this respect.

We first of all see a problem in civil technology that, being exported or already used in countries that are trying to establish a nuclear weapon programme, might be used to realize these plans.

We cannot forbid countries like North-Corea to run nuclear power plants, we can only give an example by decommissioning all nuclear power plants in Europe. We may answer in the open discussion, why this is not as utopian as it might seem, at least not in the long run.
And we can avoid things like the Hanau event, in which a nuclear factory would have nearly been exported to support the Chinese weapon programmes, and further control nuclear trade on an illegal basis, by realizing points 3 and 5, in which we suggest an authority to check all exports on their relevance for proliferation.

We also cannot force souvereign nations to disarm, but the EU, being based on the idea of peace, can again give an example and complete nuclear disarmament.

Our committee agrees, that this idea is idealistic. But what if not idealism could help, who if not the UK and France should make the first step in global nuclear disarmament?

Both of these countries have no interest in ever starting a nuclear war. Both of these countries have actually obliged to complete nuclear disarmament in the nun-proliferation treaty. Both countries, Ladies and Gentlemen, should indeed do so.

The fact that no nuclear war has come to existence within the last 50 years does not mean that the strategy of deterrence will be successful in the future, it will, according to many experts, inevitably lead to nuclear proliferation and in the end nuclear overkill.
Deterrance means, that if any country ever uses nuclear weapons, this will lead to a chain reaction of nuclear weapon deployment.

Unfortunately, it is not only countries like Pakistan and Lybia that have led the world to the current situation.
The US, for instance, have developed smaller nuclear weapons called "mini-nukes" and have changed their strategy of using nuclear weapons. They now reserve the right to actually use these weapons in case of war, also against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons themselves. We believe that this development is extremely dangerous and therefore demand to ban these kinds of nuclear weaponry worldwide, the way landmines have been banned.

To propose these issues on an international level, but also within Europe, we need a united voice of both th European citizens and European policy.

Let us start today by passing this resolution, Ladies and Gentlemen, for the longer we wait with our first step, the longer the journey will take.
Letztendlich wurden wir trotz allem nicht für die internationale Sitzung qualifiziert, was unsere Stimmung aber nur kurzfristig trübte. Europa hat für mich persönlich ein Gesicht bekommen, und zwar eines, an das ich gerne zurückdenke. Und wie ich doch stark annehmen muss, ging es allen von uns so...
Committee on Foreign Affairs I, you have been recognized


Zurück

Zuletzt geändert: 13. Juli 2004