Conference Flow

ECOSOC

Summary of debate:

23.04.2021

The debate started with position speeches on Repatriation of Cultural Artifacts. At 9:07 Russia delivered a strong speech, telling a story about a little boy and his heritage. During the speech, the chairs have to remind delegates several times to not use personal pronouns. Then the chairs explain the concept of motions. Spain, Russia, and the US raised motions and all passed. Between two speeches, the chairs provide a sweet explanation about the gossip box and remind everyone to be respectful! At 34:00 the delegation of Russia impressed with strong words about cultural artifacts. Another motion is raised by Spain that successfully passes. The motion is followed by a very strong debate between Russia and Spain and later on also the US. Iran and Spain raise other motions that both fail. The debate ends with the general speaker’s list.

Resolution

Directive

UNCSTD

Summary of debate:

23.04.2021

In a strong debate surrounding Artificial Intelligence, China highlighted the great challenge of this conversation: ‘’we are at the forefront of the race into the unknown and the undiscovered.’’ While admitting the uncertainty of this topic, China was clearly proud to highlight their advancements in AI, and stated that while important, ethical considerations should not limit technological development. Further, China inquired the committee to be less judgmental in their debate, as they had turned to China’s own stances on AI earlier in a critical manner. Sweden agrees with the importance of AI in society, claiming that ‘’[AI] will be the determining factor for the future of humanity’’. However, Sweden proposes a way of ensuring this progress will be made in a safe manner in all nations by sending UN rapporteurs to check on the status of AI in all nations when AI is utilised there. The delegate of Norway proceded to elaborate on Sweden’s points, by arguing that there needs to be a commitment of all member states to a future, by working as a global family to ensure a safe and robust world. This includes conversing on values like transparency and innovation, personal data privacy and respect for human rights. ‘’We are actively walking into an uncertain future’’, Norway strongly stated to show the high importance of regulating AI. While most delegates agreed on the prevention of dangers of AI, China argued that there was too much of a focus on the dangers of AI, rather than the benefits, and that the debate should be focusing on this, thus changing the fundamental views stated earlier in the debate. France seemed to be surprised by this statement, commenting on China’s own negative stance towards AI tools like Facebook and Google- both banned in the People’s Republic of China. Sweden was appalled by the direction the debate took, and argued for the shift of focus being a ‘’total hypocritical situation’’, as it started to turn into a blame game, rather than a fruitful conversation on how to regulate AI.

Resolutions

CERD

Summary of debate:

24.04.2021

The delegations in the Committee for Elimination of Racial Discrimination were engaged in an active, but friendly debate. The focus lied on the importance of discussing both topics- the racial discrimination in UC peacekeeping missions, and Islamophobia. However, the delegations first focused on discussing how to handle the problem in the UN, and the accountability for racial crimes that is needed. For this, there was a discussion on how to find solutions, rather than analysing the root causes, which the delegation of France was speaking on was already discussed enough during the first debate. The delegate argued that the measures in place now are not effective enough, thus the committee shall look for new ones. Israel introduced the importance of the topic of education in the solutions for racial discrimination and crimes. India agreed, but also introduced the discussion on the importance of legal bases to hold the perpetrators of racially motivated crimes on UN peacekeeping missions accountable to the right amount. Germany agreed, but France seemed to return to its original stance: no problem will be solved if we do not focus on education, first. Afterall, education is the foundation of the whole issue. This education should not only focus on the peacekeepers on UN missions, but also when in social or non-combat contexts. Moving on, the delegates agreed on the need to discuss both agendas of legal grounds and education, addressing the USA personally to elaborate on this issue as a highly powerful country, who then stated: ‘’putting an emphasis on education is a central part of combatting racial discrimination.’’ Overall, the first session of the debate for CERD was lively and fruitful, and provided a strong start for this committee for the rest of the day, apparent when our Press team joined them later in the day.

The Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination worked hard on putting together a resolution. With the efforts of the delegates working together, the CERD put together their recommendations and solutions for battling racism in the UN peacekeeping missions which was debated earlier today. This resolution included providing resources for education, focusing on the accountability of peacekeepers and perpetrators of racial discrimination on missions, and using technology and media in the achievement of the committee’s goals. The resolution was drafted in a civil way, and the resolution, according to Canada and Israel, was very diverse and fruitful, ending the debate on the first topic of the CERD in a successful way. 

CSW

Summary of debate:

24.04.2021

The day started off strong in this committee, the delegates of Gambia, Somalia, the UK, Sweden, Uganda, China, Vietnam and Russia were all present for the debate today and put their best foot forward. First there was time for speeches, where the speaking delegations all had very good opening speeches. The delegate of Gambia started with a great speech on female genital mutilation, although there was a bit of confusion about what exactly the topic was. They made an excellent point about how FGM is entenched in society, facts and medicalization and how normalization suggests that solutions are based on reinforcing laws and education. After that it was the delegate of Somalia’s turn, who talked about selective abortion, abuse of women as children and how women are seen as less, despite attempts to minimize this. They proposed that new laws and education could be good way to tackle the stigma or women being seen as the weaker sex. After that the UK talked about selective abortion problem concern around the world and Sweden did a strong speech about taking a closer look at the motives for abortions, while leaving it free to women to choose if they want to have an abortion to prevent selective abortions. Vietnam ended the speeches round with a point how there are millions of unborn girls because of selective abortion in South-East Asia (SEA) and that they should look for solutions to battle this problem all around the world and especially in SEA.

SDC

Summary of debate:

24.04.2021

The debate undergone in the Sustainable Development Committee addressed the SDG 11: Building Sustainable Cities and communities in fragile states. Even before debating clauses within the resolution, the delegates of the house were vocal, respectful and enthusiastic about the various addressed subtopics. In the first unmoderated caucuses, the use of modern technologies and sustainable infrastructure were mentioned. 

More importantly, however, a basic needs approach (for city citizens) was heavily underlined by numerous delegates. Since vulnerable cities cannot become sustainable without a basic needs baseline, factors such as education, food/water access, hygiene, Bottom up decision making (Malta +1), Safety and Peace, and key infrastructures (Public Transport & Housing) had to be taken into account.

“The main goal is closing the gap between developed and developing countries”

-Delegate of Denmark. How could this gap be closed, though? Should developing countries receive external aid? And if so, should the cities themselves receive aid independently to the rest of the nations, or should national governments direct how all money is spent? Certain delegates pointed out that dependence on other countries potentially worsens international recessions and economic instability. This is one of the reasons why the creation of a sustainable city implies political and institutional stability. 

But how can cities become more sustainable, exactly? The house agreed that one main issue tied to this question was the question of private vs public ownership of goods (such as infrastructures like transport, buildings etc). The delegate of Kuwait stated that the provision of sustainable AND eco-friendly investment opportunities for private establishments was important(especially when it comes to the transport sector, as the delegate of China underlined on multiple occasions). 

More importantly still, the environmental sustainability pillar should not be overlooked. The focus of this topic should also be focused on the environment, after having addressed the basic needs issue. 

Resolutions

UNSC

Summary of debate:

24.04.2021

After the end of the unmoderated caucus, Bangladesh addressed the Rohingya citation in Cox’s Bazaar which then led to a discussion on how the pandemic is affecting this situation. Niger, Germany, France and Iran proposed working together for a working paper in a collaborative effort to help Bangladesh with this issue. However, the United States did not accept this and stated that local governments like India and Pakistan should be in control. But, Iran was assured to not let this be the end of an effort to help and proposed that support could be offered by improving the housing accommodation in Cox’s Bazaar. Unfortunately this turned out not to be an option, as Bangladesh explained that the environmental conditions in the region are not equipped to support long term housing for the Rohingya refugees. Iran then tried another tactic by proposing peacekeeping efforts in the Rakhine region in Myanmar. India saw this as a good moment to propose to work to contribute to the paper. After working on a draft resolution in breakout rooms and some discussion of the working paper, Germany was ready to support imposing sanctions. India was not too happy with this idea and suggested that clauses should be added in the working paper. Iran was more in line with Germany and decided to support imposing sanctions on international trade. Russia too was willing to support sanctions but they wanted to make sure that they would only be put on trade for the Myanmar military. After another 15 min unmoderated caucus Germany was ready to submit the working paper.

Resolution

WHO

Resolutions

Crisis