Aarau 2012

The magazine of the 16th NSC of EYP Switzerland

fusion.

The Media Team

p2 | fusion

Editorial

Passion Articles

Com

mittees

Interviews

Other

EYP & Session Theme

Defense is in a ‘Complicated Relationship’ w

ith Peace p.11 • Quotas Culture: The right route? •

No Fly Zone Europe p. 13 • EPAs: Supporting or Stifling development? p.14 • Chees, Choco-

late and the Confederation p. 15 • Durgstores Storing Drugs p. 19 • Download, Digest, Diplom

a

p. 20 • Is the Arab Spring a Facebook Revolution? p. 22 • The cost of a Life p. 23

Obsessive Perfectionism

p.4 •

Laika’s Mission p.5

I heard it through the grapevine p.8 • The

Mentally Ill, a Case of Social ExclusionI p. 13

Vast, Close and Everywhere p. 6 • Can I be the Presi-

dent next time, please? p. 18 • How

to survive your

first EYP session p. 27

Sports, there are no limits p. 24 • W

e

are but human p. 24 • Duck and

Cover p. 26

Aarau 2012 |p3

Five weeks, over 130 hours, countless e-mails, numerous Skype calls, four trains and several text messages. This is, at the eve of the session, the amount of effort accountable for one Issue of Fusion.

When does interest turn into obsession? When does one cross the line between being dedicated and a fanatic?

One could argue that the amount of energy and time invested in the production of twenty-eight pages of words and illustrations is way too much. Comparable results could have been achieved for far less. The idea that someone could spend so much time on something of so little use is disconcerting, perhaps even frightening.

Yet how many people have achieved great things by doing them half-heartedly? Great sportsmen, artists and geniuses always achieved great results by dedicating their entire lives to what they did. They placed all their time and energy into the one thing they were passionate about. Comparable is the key word here. The results would have been compara-ble, but not identical.

While this screams of perfectionism, there is in fact a certain reluc-tance to devote ourselves entirely to what we do. We are afraid that we will put too much effort for a too small reward. We fear that we will be perceived as obsessive and weird. “I am not weird, I am nice. And nice, normal people… do not have passion,” Larry Smith says in his TEDx talk Why you will fail to have a great career, depicting a common excuse we use to avoid investing too much time in one activity.

This session alike could not have been achieved without the devotion of the people you see around you. These people are students, both in high school and university, not much older than you.

The first time I attended a session, I was impressed that a group of people so young could achieve so much. Their dedication, the effort that must have been put into the realisation of this project has never ceased to amaze me.

We hope that this event will be an inspiration to you as well. That these next few days will allow you to see how much can be achieved if we just put all of ourselves into a cause we believe in.

We hope you will enjoy these five days, and that you will enjoy these pages of Fusion.

Giada Benfatto (FR)

Obsessive Perfectionism

p4 | fusion

Laika is a name you do not hear to often, yet every now and then it crosses my mind. She was roaming the streets of Moscow, where she got discovered one day. She and two other foundlings underwent rigorous training until in the end she was chosen. Chosen to get sent off into space in the Sputnik 2 on the third of November 1957. Laika had no idea of what she was about to do; she was just in it for the treats. It did not end well for her either. Contrary to what the Soviet Union originally said, she died hours after lift off due to overheating. Laika was the first animal to orbit and the first to die in orbit.

The debate on whether or not it was ethical to send a creature into space knowing that it would die is not too interesting for me. It is not ethical; I know that and the Soviet Union knew it too. Up until 2002 it was believed Laika died on day six of her journey around the planet due to oxygen running out. The Soviet Union even claimed they had euthanized her prior to the oxygen depletion. One of the scientists finally dared to speak in 1998 after the fall of the Soviet regime about how he felt, ”Working with animals is a source of suffering to all of us. We treat them like babies who cannot speak. The more time passes, the more I am sorry about it. We should not have done it… we did not learn enough from this to justify the death of the dog.”

In the end Laika’s death was not in vain, as Yuri Gagarin made it to orbit on April 12th 1961. This is not about ethics but about being pragmatic, we want to achieve goal X and killing mean Y in the process is acceptable. From the testing and creating of vaccines, genetic modification or even ani-mal testing itself. They are all wrong, yet we want to reach our goal of a healthier and happier society. Luckily modern day technology is making these sacrifices more and more redundant each day. Just as long as long as we are sympa-thetic and respectful to our means, I can sleep at night.

– Moira Lanters (NL), Guest Writer

Laika’s Mission

Live from Outside

Aarau 2012 |p5

What do the roads beneath your feet, roots beneath the soil, power cables spanning the countryside, sewer systems, garbage trucks, railways, bunkers, international trade, the Internet, and the European Youth Par-liament have in common? The answer is deceptively simple: They are all networks. But what, in fact, is a network?

In the 1550’s, ‘network’ meant a “net-like arrangement of threads, wires, etc.” It expanded to “any complex, interlocking system” in 1839; by 1914 it could refer to a “broadcasting system of multiple transmitters,” and by 1947 an “interconnected group of people” was also a network.

The evolution of the word reflects the explosion of human intercon-nectivity that modern history has witnessed. Today, we often use the word ‘network’ in a digital sense, but that belies the ubiquity of networks. Networks are everywhere. The very fabric of our world and our society consists of layers of networks stacked on top of each other, both literally and figuratively.

A network of drainage pipes and sewers flourish under sprawling rail-way and road networks. High above, airline routes form a network above the clouds, linking together increasingly connected nations. Less vis-ibly, but no less significantly, invisible digital radio, television, telephone and satellite signals blip through and out of the atmosphere. Each new network, each new layer, has grown on top of the other as civilization evolved.

Today we are more interconnected than ever before. The exponential growth of physical, infrastructural, and technological networks inter-linking humanity has made it much easier for us to grow networks of the 1947 definition: interconnected groups of people. Never have connec-tions between people separated by great distance been more extensive, widespread, or of such high quality. The fundamental ways in which we interact with other people are continuously being transformed by the rapid expansion of networks of all kinds.

For proof, we need look no farther than this session. The European Youth Parliament is a network, and one of which you are now part. It spans across a broadly-defined Europe, a network of shared experience and friendship that transcends geographical obstacles, national borders, linguistic barriers, and even generational divides. It is built on and would not exist without the tremendous networks of transportation and com-munication of our modern age. Nevertheless, EYP’s driving force and greatest achievement are one and the same: a vast, yet close network of human connections.

Welcome to the 16th National Selection Conference of EYP Switzer-land, and welcome to the EYP network.

- Saki Shinoda (CH)

Vast, Close, and Everywhere“Networks — weaving the fabric of society” is an appealing catchphrase, but is hazy, sprawling, and difficult to pin down. Yet so are networks, and so is the essence of EYP.

photo by Saki Shinoda

p6 | fusion

Aarau 2012 |p7

‘Do I know you?’

‘Yes. Well, no. I am Dina’s ex-boy-friend. You know her from school, right? She is such…’

Inspiring comments about the weath-er excluded, this is approximately how any first meeting starts. However, a tool to get to know each other will inevitably become a tool for entertainment, not al-ways without consequences. Gossiping. For networks, it is just like chocolate. It increases your size but eventually it will kill you.

Fortunately, people found out how to taste its delicacy without risking their health: they began to swallow gos-sip from fictional stories. Dan, Serena, Chuck, Blair, Nate, Jenny and our pre-frontal cortex are the main characters in one of these concepts. Gossip Girl, for the dummies, is about a small group of teenagers that look like twenty-year-old models, live their lives in the elite group of Manhattan, are drowning in the very deeps of puberty and do… nothing. De-spite this, I have to admit that I as well am captured by the mysterious lives of these people. Something bigger keeps me tracking the series.

Is it because of our time, age of celebs’ rumours in magazines and the luxury of extra time to fill in? Maybe, but the big-ger clue more ancient. After watching an

The secret behind Gossip Girl revealed by Shake-spear’s Othello

I heard it through the grapevine

episode focused on problems that might in an attenuated way also occur to us, we feel relieved. “Thank god our trou-bles are not so great”, we tell ourselves. The moment of passively watching acts as a discharge. Aristotle described this phenomenon as káθaɾsis, catharsis, meaning ‘cleansing’. Aristotle knew it, and Shakespeare knew it as well.

In Othello, a tragedy by William Shakespeare somewhat less famous than Hamlet, but no less praised, the gossip is the killer. Torn apart by jeal-ousy, the villain Iago decides to destroy the life of Othello, a dark-skinned man at the top of the Venetian military in the 17th century, and his beautiful wife. His weapon is rumour. He manipulates his characters by whispering ideas in their ears, as if he was the director himself, until the plot ends in death.

Iago’s puppets fail to see truth from hearsay. Othello acts almost as an anal-ogy to the spectator. Though we severely try to avoid our greatest fears, we seem to believe the rumours about those fears coming true very easily, just in case they are true. Thanks to of this primeval de-fence mechanism, we are immediately sucked into the story. While watching Blair revealing Jenny’s secrets on the Internet, we see our nightmares come true.

Our imaginative capabilities cannot be underestimated. Stay healthy; watch the series.

You know you love me.

XOXO

– Bernet Meijer (NL)

p8 | fusion

When the Olympic Games took place this year, numerous statistics on medal winning and team performanc-es went around the world. One of them shows that – with the exception of only three countries – the number of med-als won by host countries has always been greater than the amount the same team won at other Olympic Games.

Known as home advantage, this phenomenon has been subject to a lot of debate and research in the field of sports. Here is a compilation of some main ideas explaining why in recent years home teams have been win-ning approx. 60% of the matches they played.

A quite obvious advantage teams of host countries have is the familiarity with the game location. After having spent most of their life on their own territory, the players certainly know every corner better than anyone else. It is not only the adjustment to the play-ing grounds that is helpful, but also the experience with a certain climatic situ-ation. Studies on teams who had re-cently moved to a new home stadium showed that re-located teams actually

face a reduced home advantage. This seems like a considerable disadvan-tage at tournaments like the Olympic Games where participants come from different continents.

Related to this is the fatigue, caused especially by long-distance journeys. As we EYPers all know from own ex-perience, travelling is exhausting and one needs some time to recover from it. Not unlike us, athletes cross borders quite often and having to do this short-ly before a match can lower a team’s performance. Backing this up is the fact that statistics have indeed shown that home advantage increases the far-ther the visiting team comes from.

While tiredness might rather seem like an excuse for bad play, another physiological response gives a more scientific explanation for the existence of home advantage. Evolutionary psy-chologists describe home advantage as a result of higher levels of testoster-one in the players of the home teams. This idea stems from the finding that animals experience the same biological reaction when defending their home territory. Analogous to them athletes

get more aggressive due to an increase in testosterone when playing at home, outplaying their opponents.

Last but not least, like all great sports-men do in their speeches, the audience has to be mentioned. We, the specta-tors, seem to influence not only our favourite athletes, but also the referees. Studies have shown that greater crowd noise changes umpires’ judgements leading to less penalties being assessed to home teams. This appears to happen subconsciously, since referees are pro-fessionals trained to be neutral.

Whether it is subliminally biased judges, long flights or new surround-ings, we all know that even the best athletes perform differently under varying circumstances. Additionally, science has proven the existence of fac-tors that make teams perform better on their own territory. This year Team GB supports the data by having won more medals in London than they have ever done at any Olympic Games.

– Jelena Stevanović (AT)

An Austrian word of wisdom on home advantage: “Geh nicht fort, sauf im Ort!“ – “Don‘t leave the space, drink at your place.“

Home, Sweet Home

Aarau 2012 |p9

Despite the best efforts of the EU and NGOs alike, the stigma surround-ing mental illnesses continues to grow. Consequently the options available for the mentally ill are often poor and re-search has shown that only few people seek out the services available to help them, like psychiatric clinics, for fear of exile. For example, while one out of five Americans live with a mental disorder, estimates indicate that only one third of people with a diagnosable mental illness seek treatment.

The stigmas in question are a mark of disgrace upon the people affected and also what caused the segregation of bib-lical lepers, who experienced isolation from both family and society. The situa-tion of mentally ill today is not very dif-ferent, as the sufferers often experience separation, lost potential and stigma. The question then arises, what causes such odium and isolation?

The cause of all stigma, including both leprosy and mental illness, comes predominantly from misinformation. Authorities have been creating a wide-spread fear of the issue from an early age. Back in the middle ages, the men-tally unwell had holes drilled in their heads to ‘release the demon’. As a result of this influence from the early church and political action, a stereotype has stuck to this day. This stereotype then resulted in a great deal of fear, much like with multiresistant bacteria or HIV. The

fear is both irrational and hard to over-come, and the severity of the symptoms of mental health diseases make others afraid to interact with the afflicted.

This begs the question: how can we solve such an enormous problem? Many would suggest that inclusion of these individuals can be achieved by keeping their conditions a secret so that people will not feel intimidated. However, it is my belief that quite the opposite is re-quired. In order to tackle the issue of ignorance, widespread enlightenment is needed to allow people the chance to fully understand the diversity of psycho-pathology. It would seem that this is a long term goal then, as most adults are past the age where they may be swayed from such reasoning.

However, this does not mean we can-not safeguard those in the future. Cur-rent research suggests that if we incor-porate socially sensitive issues subtly into the education and upbringing of children, they can be moulded to be much more accepting of diversity. This, it seems, is the key to having a warm, supportive community for the mentally ill that, in the words of Eric Fromm, tru-ly realises:

‘’That millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.’’

– Dean Connolly (UK)

‘’Mental health is nothing to be ashamed of, but stig-ma and bias shame us all.’’ - Bill Clinton

The Mentally Ill, a Case of Social Exclusion

p10 | fusion

“In Lisbon, we agreed to create a NATO missile defence system. Today, in Chicago, we have declared that a re-ality,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on 21 May 2012 regarding the announcement of the in-terim ballistic missile defence capabil-ity.

Defining the interim capability as the “start-up” of a fully operational defence system, NATO now possesses a mecha-nism with basic command and control capability over almost the entire con-tinent. The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is estimated to reach the fully operational capacity in the next decade, yet the necessity of such a defence system for Europe is still in question.

On one hand, it could be argued that there is not a foreseeable threat for the Western European countries. Although some may indicate Iran’s burgeoning aggressive diplomacy as a potential threat for the European-NATO coun-tries, Professor Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading expert on missile defence technology, believes that this poten-tial threat has been much overstated. “They [Iran] can simply not carry large enough conventional munitions to do extensive damage on impact, and they lack the accuracy to hit prescribed tar-gets with reliability,” he explains. On the other hand, the US involvement

in NATO has always posed a threat on the alliance since its foundation, con-sistently ascending as the US actively role-plays in the Middle East. Keeping the Russian criticism, concerns, and threats in mind, one may further argue that the BMDS is being constructed more for securing the United States’ he-gemony in the zone than improving the Western European countries’ security.

Although strategic partners, Russia and NATO have had a growing unease for the last few years concerning de-fence policies and are getting closer and closer to a climax with the construction of the BMDS. Dimitri Trenin, one of Russia’s most acute strategic observers, states that “strategic defence impacts upon strategic offence; devaluing the deterrent value of Russia’s own nuclear arsenal.” Mr Trenin accepts that the potential impact of the system in Eu-rope may initially be insignificant, but says that, “Moscow wants both formal assurances and an insight into the sys-tem’s parameters, to be confident that the US has no intention of degrad-ing Russia’s own deterrent power, and that the NATO system has no capabil-ity against Russian strategic missiles. Washington’s reluctance to give either raises Moscow’s suspicions.” Now, bear-ing in mind the 35 US air bases located in the Middle East – promised to be de-stroyed by Iran –, one must note that a missile defence system with the US access in the Middle East does mean a

significant advantage in the area. There-fore, the lack of transparency between NATO and Russia is not surprising.

Covering the 23% of the expen-ditures, the US impact on NATO is heavily felt, once more proven by the crisis with Russia and Iran. Although the construction of BMDS may still sound as a win-win agreement for all parties of NATO – strategic advantage for the States and enhanced security for Europe – the mission in Libya had explicitly shown that the member states of NATO are no longer able to agree on a common strategy in case of on-field action. A redefinition of NATO’s strategy is the key to solution. However, Western countries’ contribution can only be ensured through improving their economy, resulting higher GDPs, which would make them once again the producers of the security rather than the consumers of it.

Nevertheless, even if NATO finds common strategy within the alliance, Russia’s compromising partnership is still vital in order to strike a balance between alliance’s security and global peace. It is possible that NATO’s lack-ing mission and its disproportionate funding combined with fiscal austerity may, although unlikely, bring an end to the alliance in the next decades.

– Sarp Kürum (TR)

Lacking a mission after the collapse of U.S.S.R, NATO is accused of self-inter-estedly devaluing Russia’s and Iran’s deterrant power with the welcoming of the Ballistic Missile Defence System in Turkey.

Defense is in a ‘Complicated Relationship’ with Peace

SEDE

Aarau 2012 |p11

FEMM

Just a little over a month ago, the media world was plunged into a furore over a new appointment at Yahoo. The US dot-com company is known for its regular appointments of CEOs, which are usually ignored by the media. This time though, something piqued the media’s interest. It had nothing to do with the business, or why Yahoo need-ed a new CEO. It was the fact that they appointed Marissa Mayer, a 37-year-old woman, who was expecting.

But what relation does this have to the problem of underrepresentation of women in political roles, and gender balancing quotas being pushed on the EU? Many would dispute any connec-tion between Mayer’s move to the top and the fulfilment of gender equality in politics, but on closer inspection, there is a greater link than what can be seen at a first glace.

Women in politics are still a huge issue globally. Men still lead the political stage with little to curb their domination. In 1975, approximately 10% of parliamen-tarians around the world were women. In 2010, even with countless pushes to increase female representation, that fig-ure rose to a disappointing 18% – a rise of just 8% in 35 years. At that rate, ana-lysts estimate that it would take another 160 years for parity between male and female politicians. Even in the EU, more than 3 out of 4 members in parliaments are men. This problem cannot be ig-nored any further – more women must be elected EU-wide.

As easy as it sounds to introduce them however, quotas still pose a delicate situ-ation. With their implementation comes the infringement of a voter’s rights. Even Luxembourg’s Lydie Err, attend-ing a Council of Europe assembly rec-ommending quotas to Member States, avoided glossing over the problems they create. ‘‘We’re not asking people to like these quotas,” she admitted. “Would political willingness be enough without quotas? The fact is this is not the case.”

This is exactly the problem that we face. In an ideal world, we should be free of quotas and choose who we want to represent us freely. However, this is not an ideal world and without them, we cannot truly give women a ‘head start’ against their male counterparts. The fo-cus of policymakers should not be on the number of women they can get in-side the parliaments, but instead on how they can inspire more female politicians and finally mark an end to quotas. It is all well and good to create quotas to weaken the currently biased gender di-vide, but if they are not coupled with further support for women interested

in a political career, is it not pointless to use them as a pivot for equality? For the parity of gender in politics to im-prove, there not only must be legislative change, but societal change too.

So, where is the link between Mayer and the current political turmoil of fe-male representation? The truth is the media’s reaction to Mayer’s appoint-ment sadly mirrors how some parlia-ments and societies see their female politicians. Many described Mayer as a ‘trailblazer’ at how she ‘annihilated the glass ceiling’, but a worrying majority of comments revealed a sneery, patronis-ing view, one even questioning whether she could ‘pull it off ’. No one seemed to focus on her long-term experience with Google, or the fact that she was the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 com-pany, but only on her gender and her desire to start a family. They failed to see past her gender, and treated it as if it was some sort of anomaly or blip in the sys-tem. And if we fail to see past that in any woman, how can we possibly keep fight-ing for equality in our political systems?

– Anthony McKee (UK)

Are quotas for female representation the way forward, or does this solution do more harm than good?

Quota culture: The right route?

p12 | fusion

With the Euro Crisis leaving its marks on Europe over the last years, the always-present climate crisis is often forgotten. This summer the effects of global warm-ing have become increasingly visible, with rising average temperatures and ex-treme weather conditions. Efforts to pre-vent global warming are numerous, but appear to lack the required effect. The current EU Emission Trading System is just an example.

Despite the growing awareness of global warming being originated in the USA, they themselves have not taken any significant action. In fact they, together with China, Russia, Japan and several others, have tried to block Europe’s ef-forts to include the aviation sector in its EU ETS. Europe seems on its own in its struggle to reduce CO2 emission, as other countries seemingly believe that the economical costs do not outweigh the benefits. However, this resistance is no reason for the EU to quit its current efforts to reduce CO2 emission.

In its very principle, the ETS can be ef-fective to reduce the emission of green-house gases (GHSs). The financial incen-

tives given to companies in the form of fines and potential profits generated by selling the remaining allowances gener-ally work. Carbon taxes alone have in the past proven to be ineffective in reducing emissions, making an ETS the best alter-native. However, without substantially reducing the amount of allowances eve-ry year, the effect of the measure disap-pears.

Criticasters of the ETS in general, and the inclusion of the aviation sector especially, are particularly concerned about the competitiveness of European businesses. In the case of the aviation sector, they claim that it will not only decrease the competitiveness of Euro-pean airlines, but also make Europe a less interesting market for airlines from outside the EU. Both of these arguments are perfectly valid. However, they do not consider the beneficial effects the ETS would have on European airlines.

An ETS on the flying sector will encour-age airlines to look for alternatives that are less polluting and, rather crucial in this story, cheaper. This would actually have a positive effect on the competitiveness

of European airlines. Furthermore, the at-tractiveness of the EU market as a whole will hardly be at stake. As long as the EU has 600 million of the world’s richest in-habitants, there will always be airlines in-terested in offering flights in the EU.

It is not only for these reasons that the EU should fully embrace the ETS. In or-der to convince the rest of the world of the effectiveness of an ETS in reducing CO2 emissions, the EU should stay fully committed to the programme. By show-ing that the ETS can in fact be beneficial to airlines’ positions on the market, the EU should try to make the rest of the world commit to a global ETS.

Furthermore, a global ETS would bring us much closer to effectively fight-ing the aviation sector’s pollution. In this context, the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility comes to the stage – a widely accepted but out-dated principle, which essentially allows developing economies to grow on fossil fuels. Instead, we should see sustainable energy as a source of growth and for this reason, include them in our efforts to reduce emission of GHSs. Common But Differentiated Responsibility should not be considered in this debate, as global warming is a global responsibility.

Due to its international character, cli-mate change is typically an issue to be addressed at a supranational level. Only if all countries commit themselves to re-ducing CO2 emission, significant steps can be taken towards stopping global warming and its potentially disastrous effect. The EU should not be restrained by fear, but should aim to be, within its legal boundaries, a role model to the rest of the world.

– Willem Koelewijn (NL)

The EU’s efforts to include aviation in the struggle against global warming may mave more potential than a first glance reveals.

No Fly Zone EuropeITRE

Aarau 2012 |p13

In late June 2012, EU MEPs voted for an extension of the deadline for ratification of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) to 2014. Countries that have not ratified their EPAs in this time frame risk losing their preferen-tial access to EU markets, as has been denounced by African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) officials, who feel they need further time to negotiate. Why do these countries have such reserva-tions about signing the agreement and why have only 26 out of a possible 79 countries signed interim EPAs?

EPAs are now the mainstay of devel-opment promotion in ACP countries, replacing the Cotonou Agreement that was deemed to be partisan and thus in-compatible with World Trade Organi-sation (WTO) legislation. EPAs aim to promote growth and encourage devel-opment in the ACP block through a process of increased liberalisation, in-tegration and a gradual move towards reciprocity in trade.

The European Union considers it-self, by endorsing such agreements, to be promoting an alternative approach to the largely discredited Washington Consensus programme. The American programme supplied loans on condi-tion that an intense regime of priva-tisation, deregulation and integration was undertaken. Not only did the US along with the World Bank and IMF cause serious structural problems for

many nations, they also undermined their own long-term relationships with them.

The EU, through its endeavours to push through a programme of intense economic opening and privatisation, could fall into the same trap. Such programmes have been shown by a number of studies to have a negative impact on the GDP. However, the area that appears to prompt most concern is that of reciprocity in market openness. This objective will force the ACP to re-move tariffs on nearly all imports from the EU leading to their markets being flooded by high tech multi-national companies. This will stifle the develop-ment of their own industry, something that lead Aliyu Modibo Umar, Minis-ter of Commerce for Nigeria to state that “the gradual removal of trade bar-riers... would probably destroy the little development that some ACP countries have managed to achieve.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to a report funded by leading charities including Christian Aid and Tearfund, allegations have been made that European negotiators are “using aid as a bargaining chip” in the hope of including the Singapore is-sues of free market investment, govern-ment procurement and competition in the finalised agreements. The report also raises other concerns in relation to

aid, suggesting that the money prom-ised in the Aid for Trade programme is merely “a recycling and a relabeling of existing aid commitments”.

The principle of Aid for trade is to support development through capacity building, enabling weaker economies to benefit from free trade. However, in practice, this is not delivering the desired result. In contrast the Chinese style of direct investment may suit the needs of developing nations bet-ter. Sino-African pacts have revolu-tionised what constitutes investment and aid. Although there appears to be strong evidence of their effectiveness, concerns have been raised about the lack of condemnation of human rights abuses and support for dictatorial gov-ernments. One of the main benefits of Chinese investment currently is its counter-cyclical nature, a policy that can only be promoted by the state or large enough companies. The EPAs would be unable to achieve this.

In essence whilst EPAs appear to be pro-development on the surface, if we scratch a little deeper we see they are for our benefit and ours alone. The European Parliament was right to de-mand more time. It should be used to re-evaluate its position and recommit to the targets it initially set out.

– Sorcha Foster (IE)EPA

s: S

uppo

rtin

g or

Stif

ling

Dev

elop

men

t?DEVE

As EPAs enter their final stage, what will the cost be for developing nations?

p14 | fusion

Cho

cola

te, C

hees

e an

d th

e C

onfe

dera

tion

In a perfect world, democratic sys-tems include as many people as possible, consider and balance all major points of view, and provide equal opportunity to all to express their opinion. In reality, at-tempting to achieve all three objectives in the same system creates unwieldy decision-making processes too slow to be practical. However, the alternative is a democratic deficit like the European Union’s.

Until recently, the EU’s lack of partici-patory democracy fuctioned because it handled technical affairs like the single market and customs union. Now its pol-icies encroach on core social and eco-nomic issues relevant to the common citizen, but those citizens have very little say on the European level. Considering the size of the EU, to possibly meet the demands of participatory democracy without completely stifling the decision-making process?

One solution for the European Union could lie in Switzerland. The Swiss blend of direct democracy and federalism suc-cessfully unites multiple native cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups within its borders. At a time when the EU’s sta-bility is threatened by socially and cul-turally contrasting attitudes among its member states, Switzerland’s model is especially appealing.

Swiss federalism, because of the au-tonomy of its constituent states, has the

significant advantage of flexibility. At the municipal and cantonal level, local communities have the authority to gov-ern themselves in accordance with local social, economic and historical context. Participatory democracy is easier on a small-community level where one’s opinion can translate visibly into local law. Decentralised management of day-to-day affairs preserves diversity, while federal co-ordination unifies the nation when necessary, as for large-scale infra-structure like national railway networks, or for foreign affairs and national de-fence.

Naturally, the European Union is a more ambitious project than Swiss uni-fication ever was, but two particular rec-ommendations from the Swiss system could strengthen the EU and its democ-racy. Firstly, it should solidify a federal structure similar to Switzerland’s and clearly define the responsibilities of each tier of government. Further integrating certain responsibilities would empower Europe as a unit on the world stage, while separating other competences would empower regions within Europe and enable individual states to better handle domestic affairs.

Secondly, domestic democracy within member states and on the local level should be strengthened. This will in-crease the legitimacy of member states’ representative democracies and trans-mit legitimacy up to the European level.

A more transparent two-way route be-tween the people and the EU could also unify today’s separate electorates into the European electorate lacking today. A unified European electorate would strengthen democratic structures like the European Parliament and amplify the voice of the people.

After all, the will and willingness of the people is the driving force of de-mocracy. However difficult it may seem given history and current conditions, the European Union must become a union of the people rather than a union imposed. The EU should be accountable to its people, but until the people see themselves as responsible for the EU, the organisation will remain undemocratic. Expanding the powers of the European Parliament or providing avenues of di-rect participation on the European level can only accomplish so much if Europe’s people do not believe in a united Europe.

There is a realisation necessary here that the Swiss can teach their neigh-bours: belonging to one cultural, na-tional, ethnic or linguistic group does not exclude belonging to others. Re-gardless of background or how strongly one identifies with something, it is still possible to belong to something else much larger, whether that is a union, a confederation, or unity in diversity by any other name.

– Saki Shinoda (CH)

As the European Union struggles to reconcile democracy, efficiency, and soli-darity in the face of crisis, it may want to look at Switzerland’s example.

AFCO

Aarau 2012 |p15

p16 | fusion

Aarau 2012 |p17

My first session, the 10th NSC of EYP Turkey in Istanbul, was a quite puzzling experience. While I knew what EYP was and stood for, I was utterly clueless about the board and the officials’ roles. It was only at the closing ceremony when I first came to realise the exist-ence of two Editors. The only people I knew were our committee journalist, a couple of organisers and my two chair-

persons. Coincidentally, one of them was, then like now, the beloved presi-dent of the session, Kerstin Mathias (DE). Worst of all though, I could not understand why people applauded the Head Organisers so hard. Eight months later and with the help of some well-known social networks, I believe that I can help you understand better how these people are making Aarau 2012 the session it is.

What you are experiencing now is the end product of months and months of preparation. The Head Organisers had to overcome mundane procedures and a tedious hunt for sponsorships to fi-nance the session. That is only one of the hardships of being a Head Organ-

iser – finding a logo and a theme for the session can also be a nightmare. Always remember that for the organising team the session starts well before the ar-rivals and ends long after the farewell party. Thus, please be kind and grate-ful when you see Anaïs Franck (CH) and Seraina Petersen (CH) around, for they are individual Mark Zuckerbergs of this session.

The President of the session, on the other hand, is in charge of the admin-istration and overall quality of the ses-sion. Kerstin Mathias, aided by her two right hands, the Vice Presidents, has not only contributed to the formation of the officials’ team, but is also in charge of leading the chairs’ team. Furthermore, she has the privilege to officially open and close the session. Kerstin, Mark Brakel (NL) and Sophie Scannell (IE) make up the Board and can be symbol-ised as Twitter. They speak precisely and their sentences, like tweets, are straight to the point. However, this should not keep you away from getting to know them. They are all quite modest and friendly EYPers.

Also, the people under the President’s lead, the chairpersons are responsible of guiding and leading their respective delegates in their committees, and can be called the Facebook. They glue in-dividual delegates into a team and lead them through the seriousness and the silliness of a session. Furthermore, the authors of the beautifully written over-views are, in fact, those chairpersons.

During a session, it is very difficult to catch up with the outside world, follow rumours, take some photos with friends as memoirs and focus on the session it-self at the same time. This is what the press team is for: to be the Tumblr of the session. One or two Editors, who are generally barely seen by anyone oth-er than their journalists, lead the team. The press team will inspire, inform and entertain the participants through sev-eral media, as well as put a smile on their faces once the session is over and the nostalgia surfaces. At this session, alongside Giada Benfatto (FR), there is also Sebastian Gerbeth (DE), Video Editor, to ensure the team’s success. As with the President’s role, one needs sub-stantial journalism experience before applying as an Editor.

It is certainly not compulsory to learn everything about the officials’ team in order to fully enjoy the session. How-ever, having a sense of what each po-sition is all about may turn out to be quite handy. After all, we are parts of the same puzzle – with slightly differ-ent locations – and knowing the other pieces strengthens our bonds and fur-ther establishes empathy and respect towards each other.

– Sarp Kürüm (TR)

Can I be the President next time, please? Although not mandatory, having a sense of EYP and the officials’ team may turn out to be more useful than what you might expect during the session.

See picture p. 16-17

p18 | fusion

ENVI

The War on Drugs seems to be a conflict with no end in sight. Oppos-ing stakeholders have been fighting and debating for ages on the legal status of drugs and the prosecution drug-offend-ers should face. While the legal status of the drug marijuana aka cannabis is the same in all EU Member States, the consequences of cannabis-involving of-fences vary considerably. With the Neth-erlands assigning the investigation and prosecution of possession of cannabis for personal use the lowest judicial pri-ority on one side and Cyprus going as far as punishing the same crime with life-imprisonment on the other side, a wide range of sentences can be found in the EU. However, one question presents itself here: Are these penalties necessary at all or would EU Member States benefit much more from a legalisation of mari-juana?

While there are substances that, with-out a doubt, need to be prohibited in order to protect individuals, marijuana does not present much danger to peo-ple‘s health. In fact, Cannabis has several beneficial effects when used medically. Whether it is reducing pain, stimulating the appetite of patients in chemothera-py or decreasing intraocular pressure, there is scientific proof that cannabis usage can contribute to the recovery of certain diseases. Building on this, some

EU countries have already legalised this drug for medical use. It only seems like the right step for the other Member States to follow their lead. Suffering in-dividuals should not be denied the ad-ditional treatment this natural medicine can provide.

Moreover, in many countries the harm initiated by drug prohibition goes far be-yond the lack of natural medical treat-ment. Outlawing drugs such as cannabis accounts for a great part of corruption, violence and money laundering that nu-merous states are faced with. Decrimi-nalising marijuana would would provide governments with more control over the drug market. It is easier to influence the production, distribution and consump-tion of legal drugs than of those being moved around away from sight of any authorities. A regulated market would lessen the power of organised crime and consequently increase the security of citizens of affected countries.

Additionally, organised crime often follows the motto, “Money makes the world go around.” As George Soros, a Hungarian-American business magnate and philosopher, once put it, “The great-est beneficiaries [of keeping marijuana illegal] are the major criminal organisa-tions in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this il-licit trade – and who would rapidly lose

their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity.“

The amount of money circulating on the drug scene is enormous. Decrimi-nalising cannabis would make drug traf-ficking and selling a less lucrative busi-ness for criminals and thus a slightly less inviting business, since – as a legal sub-stance – marijuana could be taxed. The money gathered by levying taxes on can-nabis can then be invested in other fields like health care, education or whatever a state might need. Likewise is already being done with alcohol and tobacco, creating a pot of money that can be in-tended for the overall national budget or spent on projects addressing drug abuse and citizens‘ well being.

If policy makers inside and around the EU would thoroughly consider facts like these and take some inspiration from well-founded reports such as the Global Commission on Drug Policy Report, the war on drugs could actually make some progress. The corruption or money laun-dering resulting from drug prohibition is in numerous countries greater then the harm caused by drugs themselves, especially cannabis. Legalising this soft and medically helpful drug to regulate the market appears to be a reasonable step on the way to combat these issues.

–Jelena Stevanović (AT)

Does it not seem a little paradoxical to campaign for the unceasing prohibition of Marijuana, while more lethal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal?

Drugstores Storing Drugs

Aarau 2012 |p19

‘You want to fly a helicopter? No prob’. You take a seat in the main room of the Nebuchadnezzar; Tank is loading the program. ‘Done’, he says. You take a deep breath: this is going to be intense. One, two, three. A plug is inserted in the back of your head. Thirty seconds later you have swallowed all the skills and knowl-edge to be a perfect pilot. These science-fictional dreams shown in The Matrix might not be a reality yet, but technology has made quite some progres-sion regarding the possibili-ties of e-learning.

Approximately 550 years ago there was a revolution in the delegation of knowledge. The invention of print offered the European citizens new prospects in communication as well as education. A little more than 20 years ago, the World Wide Web was born. New possibilities arose for politicians, advertisers, blog-gers and especially for us, the students. E-learning, which is defined as interactive learn-ing activities making use of a computer network, is the new tool of educational institu-tions.

Is it? Not only officially reg-istered institutions can make use of e-learning, and that is where we meet our first dilemma. Non-formal learning on the web in the form of blogs, apps and social media contributes greatly to the learning process. It allows users to de-velop skills as well as sharing knowledge. The problem is that apps are only created when there is certainty that people will start using them. This can be called the liberal feature of the WWW. Moreover,

as everyone can make use of it, much rubbish can also pollute the market. Therefore we need web supervision. The e-learning programs to be created on the web should somehow cover the needs of the current labour market.

Imagine yourself in class, sitting next to your friend, who refused to do his homework. The teacher asks a question, hands rise. Inevitably the teacher looks

in the direction of your friend, who does a poor job in vanishing behind his book, however hard he tries. Your friend’s an-swer, though very creative, is not what is in the book. The nitwit in the front got it just right, but your friend’s answer keeps swarming through your mind. You think, ‘Wow, I never thought of that one’. While teachers may or may not en-courage such ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking, it is certain that computer programs do

not. The power of learning on a horizon-tal level – students from students – must not be underestimated. Therefore social networks can contribute to horizontal learning, provided there is a supervising teacher connected to the network.

Indeed, teachers can put a limit to rub-bish arisen in Virtual Learning Environ-ments (VLE) and also build discipline amongst the students. Can a VLE really

encourage students to make optimal use of their cognitive capacities? On top of that, a knowledge economy needs people to specialise in certain subjects. E-learning can offer a broad spectrum of different studies, but to create the pos-sibility to deepen a subject, the list of separate programs or networks that would have to be made is endless. The E-learning Action Plan has been encouraging research since 2001 already. However, the proportion between e-learning and classical meth-ods must be find out.

No, we don’t need censor-ship of any kind to protect the EU student – or rather all EU citizens since the EU pleads for a lifelong learning. As

with print, leaving the choice to the mar-ket works pretty well. However, to make e-learning a proper educational tool, we do need supervision on the Internet. Be-cause a tool it is. Again, as with books after the invention of the printing press education did not suddenly transfer to paper. While web surfing will definitely come in handy, teachers cannot be re-placed.

– Bernet Meijer (NL)

While the improvements in technology have provided us with a whole new set of opportunities for education, this does not mean that they can fully replace traditional classroom learning.

Download, digest, diploma

p20 | fusion

Every good invention comes with a great amount of disputes. Every life-changing innovation sparkles a contro-versy before being in the end, accepted. Internet file sharing is in no way dif-ferent. The music industry can oppose it and force governments to ban it, but in the end such innovation cannot be stopped. There is no point in fighting against the flow, or swimming against the current. Romantic rhetoric aside, in the long run nothing can be done.

ACTA, the international agreement that aims to establish multinational standards on intellectual property rights enforcement, opposes the flow of change. It is nothing but a last resort, a measure set by desperation to try and slow down the natural change of events. Let us be honest, who has never down-loaded illegally music or film from the Internet? To some extent we are all pi-rates. Let us be even more honest: even if file sharing is criminalised, it will still take place. Just look at the 20s prohibi-tionist era in America: everybody was still drinking, the traffic just moved un-derground with more consequences. If implemented, ACTA will have the same effect. Take the example of Megaupload: after the US government closed it down,

Internet users simply moved to alterna-tive websites. File sharing simply cannot be stopped.

Continuing on the effects of attempt-ed legislation on file sharing, let us take the examples of France and Sweden. Ever since the introduction of the Haute Autorité Pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet (HADOPI), which allows the govern-ment to turn off all internet access if you are caught illegally downloading files three times, revenues in the music industries have gone down 3.9%. This is because illegal file sharing has a ten-dency to create revenues in alternative sectors, such as concerts, Internet plat-forms, merchandise and so on. On the other hand, Sweden, which has invested its energies in providing other music providers – such as the famous website “Spotify” – has experienced consider-able gains. The music and film industry must adapt to the times, as nothing can revitalise records and CD stores: digital platforms are the future.

It must be said that not all of ACTA is old-minded. While it unnecessarily poses a strong limit of personal liber-ties on the net to avoid a bunch of petty crimes, it raises an interesting question on the value of privacy. Why do we value privacy so much? Is transparency not a valid alternative? As controver-sial and maybe unconstitutional as this argument may be, why do we insist on keeping the net secret? After all, is it not under the dogma of privacy that hackers and corporate cybercriminals keep on hiding? Furthermore one could argue that the will to attempt to keep everything secret is opposes the change in times. We live in a world where the atomic bomb can be built using infor-

mation found on Google, where Wikile-aks intercepts all classified information, where Berlusconi’s lovers are public to the general electorate. Why defend pri-vacy when it is very often inefficient and damaging?

I dream of a world of transparency, a world where everybody’s actions are public, a very open Internet society where petty thieves are publicly accept-ed, crimes are diversified and serious technological hacking attempts are per-secuted under the sunlight. One could summarise it as separating the big fishes from the huge sharks. If we play our cards correctly, a win-win situation is not impossible. At the cost of sacrificing that old value – privacy - personal liber-ties on the Internet can be safeguarded, and transparency can make the web and our society safer and Europe’s innova-tive industries can remain competitive and free from cyber-attacks.

-Manfredi Danielis (IT)

ACTA is seen as a radical approach violating numerous personal liberties. Yet while it does oppose the inevitable flow of change, under some aspects it is ahead of its time.

Huge Sharks and Little In-ternet Fishes

Aarau 2012 |p21

Even though Facebook completely missed its start on the stock market, we all believe Facebook has changed our way of living. With more than 800 million active users, Facebook is among the biggest social media plat-forms that connect people from all over the world. However, while for us it social media are a tool to chat, ‘like’ and ‘tag’, in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) they are said to be one of the basic elements of the Arab revo-lution.

Starting December 2010, people have been posting their frustrations, what they have seen and heard. News, photos and even short films of mur-ders and protests have been spread via the World Wide Web. People began organising themselves on Twitter and Facebook to protest and call a halt to the regime. Social media were deci-sive, it is said. As a result, we call it the Facebook Revolution.

Nevertheless, we have to be critical. How vital were social media really in transforming the people’s frustrations into action? Those who are familiar with posting messages on Facebook, reading blogs and tweeting are well-educated young people. This is the only part of the population of the MENA region that had access to the Internet and knew how to use it. They would have heard about the unfair situation in their country even with-out the help of social media.

We must also consider the limita-tions of technology. In Egypt for exam-ple, people could not trust digital tools

because the state was monitoring the Internet. Thus, Facebook could not be used to organise such a sensitive cause. The importance of the role of old-fash-ioned techniques, such as gathering in hubs or distributing handwritten doc-uments, shows the limits of new tech-nologies. Indeed, it was this kind of of-fline interaction that provided much of the fodder for online connections. Ad-ditionally, when the Egyptian authori-ties tried to shut down the Internet and mobile networks for five days, the plan backfired. Suddenly there was a huge increase of the number of people riot-ing in the streets. The protests became stronger and the revolution more pow-erful.

Furthermore, if social media are so strong and decisive, why have the protests and demand for change de-creased so much? Even though there are some signs of change and pro-gression, democracy and freedom of speech are still far away. While tech-nology certainly played a role in the revolution, its contributions were complementary rather than core.

So what were the main causes of this revolution? First, there are the eco-nomical reasons, in particular the high

unemployment rates in the MENA re-gion, reaching nearly 30% for youth unemployment in both Egypt and Tunisia. Second, there are the political reasons. Syria, for instance, is a police state where the government controls social, economic and political life with the help of secret police forces. It is the reason why small protests have not succeeded in the past. Only recently, when the army changed sides and refused orders from the regime, the revolution could occur.

In conclusion, it was the concur-rence of events that led to the Arab Spring. The bad living conditions con-tributed to a general loss of confidence and hopes for the future, with protests as a logical result. In this stadium of the revolution, social media became important. In the end, social media were a catalyst for the process of the revolution, fanning the flames of pro-test. However, without the dignity and courage of individuals who gave their lives for a better future, social media would have been nothing more than a drop in the ocean.

–Louis Wouters (BE)

The Arab Spring is widely considered to have been sparked by new technologies and social media, but were these really the defining factors?

Is t

he A

rab

Sprin

g a

Face

book

Rev

olut

ion?

AFET

p22 | fusion

Defining human life is a controversy surrounding many medical dilem-mas. Embryonic stem cell research is a modern example of how divided this can make the academic world, with the main ethical consideration being whether or not young embryos consti-tute a life.

‘’In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.’’ According to this description by Dr. Georges Kaluger, of when life begins, this form of research actually condones the murder of one life in order to attempt to save another. Can this be justified?

The issue becomes more ethically grey when we consider how these cells are obtained. The media often portrays a situation where young women con-ceive a child to provide a blastocyst – the mass of cells that will later turn into an embryo – for an older relative, something which is not only morally dubious but also potentially emotion-ally traumatic. One such scenario in-volved a young woman who had just become pregnant, while at the same time her grandfather was told of stem

cell therapies that may help his Parkin-son’s disease. She then had to consider that her grandfather, the ‘backbone’ of the entire family, could be potentially spared, but only at the expense of her own child – a unique, special individu-al that she would love unconditionally.

It seems that in embryonic stem cell research we really have a choice to make. Do we choose the beloved grandfather, or do we choose the tiny defenceless embryo that only shows potential for life? This is perhaps one of medicine’s greatest dilemmas, because our perception of medicine is usually that it generates life when it seems lost and fights hard to prolong death from so many lethal diseases. However, it appears that this is not the case with Embryonic Stem Cells, as many would argue that life is not created, but simply transferred from one vessel to another.

Ethicists in the EU and indeed world-wide are divided by this issue. The po-tential to save millions of people from the suffering of neurodegenerative dis-eases such as Parkinson’s disease, vas-cular dementia and brain metastases is hard to balance against the elimination of a blastocyst, each of which is also a unique and truly special individual. It becomes particularly difficult when

physicians consider their oath, which includes a promise of non-maleficence, or ‘do no harm’; all harm must be dis-proportionate to the benefits. Surely one could assume that when another life is lost in the process of treatment, in this case that non-maleficence is not upheld. This is particularly an issue in religious states such as Ireland where church values have such a huge influ-ence on the law, as opposed to the more secular Czech Republic for example, which would be more liberal with re-gards to such ‘old fashioned’ ideologies.

The question then remains: How can the EU adopt a policy about such a contentious issue that will appease all member states? Many would agree that the answer is: it cannot. The solution I believe is to set an EU wide limit on how far the research can be taken, and allowing the discretion of each member state determine law within that range.

Many would however argue that at this stage the debate changes some-what. ‘’Once you put human life in hu-man hands, you have started on a slip-pery slope that knows no boundaries.’’ Can we ever acknowledge when we are out of our depth?.

– Dean Connolly (UK)

Stem Cell Research: a beacon of emotional, moral and legal controversy. Is the loss of one life to save another truly reflective of Western Medicine?

The Cost of a Life

JURI

Aarau 2012 |p23

VS“Humanity has limits, and it is exactly the thinking that

anything is possible that has caused many problems in this world.” A deeply philosophical thought by Yannick Weber (AFET), with a definite core of truth in it. Man’s unstop-pable will to always improve and make life easier is respon-sible for global warming, the extinction of many animals, as well as the ruining of the most beautiful pieces of nature we have on our planet.

Humans have their limits. Despite technology advanc-ing, even as we speak, there will be a point where human beings will simply not be able to run any faster, jump any higher or be any stronger. Having emphasised the possible dangers of humanity’s attitude, that same attitude will also cause disappointment in the future. Humans are superior to other mammals because we have a brain that allows us to take control over others. However, our body is not as magnificent. Even though there is a lot within our reach, there is a reason why we created to machines to do certain jobs for us. Not only because we are lazy, but also because our body has limits.

Accepting this statement has many consequences. For example, this would this leave no room for improvement in sports at a certain point. Man simply will never be able to run as fast as a jaguar or a sports car. Alexander Stoffel (LIBE) offers a very interesting perspective by including Darwin’s theory on evolution in the debate. Evolution has caused the human race to grow increasingly strong. How-ever, due to the fact that the fittest – and the smartest – have survived, we have become so intelligent and knowledgeable that we are even able to get rid of that principle. Advance-ments in medicine, hygiene and nutrition have made the differences between gifted and less gifted athletes smaller, for this reason making it harder to excel and break records.

In order for the human body to be in optima forma, training is required. With records ever being set higher and higher, there will be a point where one simple cannot train any harder. At that point, training harder will even become a danger to human health. That will also be the point where, hopefully, the human race will realise that their never-ful-filled need for competition has become their own enemy. Returning to the beginning of this article, man’s everlasting need for more and better will backfire on him.

– Willem Koelewijn (NL)

While there might be limits to the human body, we can still improve our methods of training. For instance in the sprint, we can run faster by either by improving the start to attain the highest speed faster or by postponing tiredness. Indeed, nowadays athletes are not able to keep their high-est speed up until the finish, reducing their pace after about 70 meters due to the wind. Better respiration techniques can also make the difference, certainly in prolonged efforts.

Additionally, as our technology improves, we are able to perform better. Electromyography is a good example; it is a technique to evaluate the activity produced by skeletal muscles. Thanks to this innovation, trainings were made more individual and professional. There are also the inno-vations in materials, for instance the invention of the jump-ing-pole in fiberglass made new records possible. Accord-ing to Lars Kieni (SEDE), the regulations concerning these are also decisive. An example would be swimsuits covering the whole body, which were banned at the last Olympics in London. When your swimming suit helps you break records, it is telling. Innovations and better techniques do not occur daily, but the limit of those is not reached yet.

Another idea comes from Katarina Samak (ITRE), who does not believe in a limit in sports, because she believes we will keep inventing new kinds of sports in which new champions can achieve success. This will mainly be be-cause those new sports will include the use of machines and these can push the limits of human activity to a whole other level. Matthias Pleyer (FEMM) also confirmed this. It was his will and courage that motivated him to go biking even faster and better after his recuperation from an ac-cident. “One can always try harder, because that is where I see the difference between animals and human beings. Our will can sometimes be stronger than our body, and that is the only thing that keeps us making progress,” Katarina says.

We cannot ignore or forbid advanced and progressive technologies because sport has to be a reflection of its time. A century ago, people could not have imagined Us-ain Bolt running 100m in 9.58 seconds. They would have call this impossible or crazy. Our thoughts about beating current records are similar. Records are there to be broken. Although the possibility of improving the human body is limited, there will always be more room for improvement.

-Louis Wouters (BE)

Sports, there are no limits

WE ARE BUT HUMAN

p24 | fusion

Like. Like. Share. Like. ’16 of your friends have poked you. Poke them back?’

So begins the tiresome charade of surfing the vast, unending online cat-alogue of ‘friends’ by the name of Fa-cebook. No more deserting dreaded social interaction at the front door – it stalks you to your bedroom, living room, kitchen – anywhere you can use a computer or mobile. A fervent pas-sion fills you pushing you to tag your-self in photos on nights out, updates on your location, and curious to know the answer to the most important question of all: “What’s on your mind?”

It is hard to compute how not too long ago the Internet as we know it did not exist. My mind boggled when my mother told me how for a very long time when she was younger, landline phones were still not a very common household item. Nowadays, a tap on the screen of your mobile phone, con-nected to Facebook, is enough. Huge majorities of people use it too. In fact, on Alexa web traffic rankings, Face-book comes up top, beating Google, Yahoo and Twitter.

However, it would not be fair to say that Facebook has already won the waging war of social media. Yes, Fa-cebook has grown by an unbelievable amount, with its following now stand-ing at a staggering 950 million – but there are a few issues it has yet to over-come, and perhaps a few mistakes by

other social networking companies it should take note of.

MySpace is one of the biggest exam-ples of this. In 2005, no one could have predicted its plummeting fall. Looking back now, the average page looks sad and slightly dilapidated; its shockingly eye-piercing ‘individualistic’ colour schemes making any nostalgic browser wince for the ‘creative side’ of human-ity. It was not just the horrendous ap-pearance that made MySpace a finan-cial failure – losing an estimated $1 billion for News Corp – but the fact that it failed to adopt new technologies, thus losing its users to more advanced, polished sites. It also struggled with one huge element that all websites built on social engagement find difficulty with, including Facebook: revenue.

Finding actual financial gain from social networking sites is a nightmare and the bubble companies still cannot seem to burst. Facebook is no differ-ent – finding the right balance between user interests and marketing opportu-nities is extremely difficult, if not im-possible. Facebook users are resistant to change, barely withstanding the minimal advertising already on the site, while businesses question whether buying advertisements is really mak-ing them any money. The fears and worries of investors clearly showed as Facebook made its debut on NASDAQ recently, its stock currently down more than half of its starting value. The fact that its growth also is slowing down

gradually does not help.

Another huge problem Facebook has faced is how it handles its privacy, or lack thereof. Its critics have pointed out the privacy issues countless times in the past, from how it protects pro-files from the outside world, to how it handles personal data and whom it shares it with. More recently, the Irish and German data protection officials have condemned Facebook’s latest ploy to roll out automatic facial recognition in photos on the site, arguing it violates EU law.

Apart from all its flaws, its previous mistakes and possible future demise however, it is important to see the posi-tives of a site like Facebook. It allows us not only to connect with family and close friends, but those far away, even our fellow EYPers. Having a strong network like this allows us to bond and grow friendships, even share memories with ease. Love it or hate it, Facebook is a helpful tool for us to keep in contact with those near or far, and long may it stay.

– Anthony Mc Kee (UK)

Rise and Fall of FacebookFacebook might seem an invincible giant right now, but like Goliath, it may well soon be confronted with a small David that will hit its weakest spot.

Aarau 2012 |p25

Bert’s Tips on Surviving a Nuclear Holocaust:- Be nice to the Media Team- Stay away from turtlenecks, only Bert can pull them off- Always have a pair of fresh socks with you- Whenever you see a bright flash: Duck and Cover

Duck and CoverSome call it an accommodation, others a “civil de-fence facility”. Let us be honest: It is a freaking bun-ker. Bunker life has very few and simple rules…

Wake it; shake it.

Bunker life usually starts at 6am with a wake up call. The brutality of this call can be measured on a easily readable scale:

Gentle amateur call. A beautiful organis-er gently knocks on your door reminds you of breakfast time.

Effective intermediate call. A loud organ-iser bangs on the door and shouts with a 100 dB voice “Up!”

Brutal advanced call. A team of organisers enters the room without asking, turns on some hard-core metal music by your bed and blinds you with daylight. Sometimes US military trum-pets are heard.

Ultimate bunker wake up. A platoon of madmen raid the room under the sound of ma-chineguns and bombardments yelling, “Wake it, shake it, the Germans are bringing you coffee. Incoming!” Suddenly an exploding hand gre-nade knocks you on the ground.

Build your stamina.

EYP sessions and patrolling, require a lot of energy. Falling asleep during the day-watch is not an option. De-serters will be punished. For this reason all breaks are filled with refreshments and coffee. The options are two:

1) You love coffee and drink lots of it. Perfect, drink even more.

2) You hate coffee and cannot stand its taste. In this case find an alternative substitute to caffeine. Get high on chocolate, abuse orange juice or do whatever else works. Anything – legal – that gets your system going is more than welcome.

Hydrate; do not save water.

The bunker has access to clean drinkable water: use it and drink it. The poor fishes and turtles, are not your problem, not matter what Bert says. This may sound like a joke but it is not rare that participants experience dizziness or even faint due to dehydra-tion. We cannot suffer any casualties. We have a medic during the session but let us not keep him occupied.

Lights out, radio silence.

Only the young and strong are enrolled in the bunker and thus there is no “bedtime hour”. However, believe me when I say it is not wise to pull an all-nighter. Even with many fun things to do take those four to six hours to sleep. No full time night watches: your productivity will greatly increase. We do not really care where you sleep as long as you close your eyes for a bit.

photos by Manfredi Danielisp26 | fusion

As a first time delegate, you are prob-ably wondering what on earth EYP is all about. Here is a short summary of the dos, don’ts and other pieces of hopeful-ly useful information to enlighten you.

First, it is important you realise that over the next few days it is unlikely you will get much sleep. Not only are you sleeping in a bunker, which unless you are used to living in a cave will probably cause insomnia in itself, but you will also be incredibly busy, either work-ing on your resolutions or doing other equally important stuff. Sleep tends to fall rapidly down the list of priorities.

Sleep-deprived individuals tend to require caffeine by the bucket load. Stash away your preferred source, be it tea, coffee or fizzy drinks and ensure you have secret emergency supplies just encase. There is no telling what people will do to get their hands on it.

Additionally, from my UK experi-ence, if you have taste buds that are functioning correctly, it is highly un-likely you will appreciate the food on offer. A stop of at a supermarket of your choice before your arrival or during the session is advisable. The Swiss cuisine may however be superior, we shall see.

This article is probably causing some concern by now, but donot fear. Despite all this, these five days will most likely

be one of the most intense and reward-ing experiences you will have for some time. The resolutions you are working on can seem overwhelming initially and the prospect of debating the is-sues even more so. Nevertheless, you have done your research and will have formed your own opinions, so it is im-portant to have confidence in yourself and be both assured and flexible in your positions. Do not worry about those individuals who know how to walk the walk, it is probably all a bit of bravado.

Finally, while some people may at-tempt to “borrow” your supplies or just garner amusement from hiding things for a few days, the majority of “EYPers” are very nice. You will meet people with different political views, different back-grounds and here in Switzerland differ-ent first languages. Use this opportunity to engage with them and you will gain a lot from this experience. Also, if you chose to attend more EYP sessions you will probably bump into them again. They turn into those annoying relatives you cannot seem to avoid.

My advice to survive your first ses-sion: drink so much coffee you almost get the shakes, don ot touch the food, be confident in your opinions, smile, be friendly and enjoy yourself.

-Sorcha Foster (IE)

How to survive your first EYP Session

Aarau 2012 |p27

Brought to you by