Day Three
Update # 1
Starting at 8 am, one can feel the sense of trepidation in the air as well as excitement. Despite having to wake up so early in the morning on a Saturday, all members of the GA are wide awake and ready for the long day ahead. At 8:05, the Assembly began. The minute the delegates heard the sound of the gavel, they quieted down and returned to their places, prepared for the first resolution and debate.
The first resolution of the GA, is a main submissions by Ecuador. In a change from tradition, the GA is debating a special topic, which is directly related to the Sustainable Development Goals. the SDGs are the UN’s plan for global progress on the major issues present in the world today, to be completed by 2030. IASAS MUN 2019’s theme is therefore “reaching for 2030”.
The resolution is on the question of supporting development and strong institutions in LEDCs within a framework of sustainable development. The delegates had a five minute reading time, while the delegation of Ecuador made their way to the stage to present their resolution. The delegation began with a metaphor of pies and cakes, before stating that this resolution is a cake, with essential layers. They compared the layers; sponge, cream and berries, to the various different clauses. The clauses that were the foundation, such as clauses 1, 2 and 3, which addressed the issue of poverty, hunger and clean water were the sponge or foundation of the metaphorical cake. The rest of the clauses made up the cream and berries.
At the end of their crafted speech, the delegation was open to any and all POIs. They were questioned on the proposal of making a central database for LEDCs and MEDCs, with the delegate questioning wether or not such an idea was a waste of time and money. The delegate of Ecuador replied by explaining that such a database would allow for better communication and that, really, making a database is not that expensive. When the delegation was asked how the LEDCs would maintain the structures proposed within the resolution, the delegation replied stating that it would be with the help of the MEDCs, before stating that it is better to look and address short term problems right now before tackling long term problems. Furthermore, when a delegate bought clause 11, sub-clause 8, which concerned punishments, they questioned whether this would, instead of helping, inhibit the growth of nations. The delegate of Ecuador replied, saying it was in regards to MEDCs, and would punish those who would not follow the SDGs. Overall, the delegation was heavily questioned.
After the delegation of Ecuador yielded to the chair, the chair called for any against speeches. The delegation of Oman was called upon to present their speech. With great passion, the delegation of Oman proclaimed that the resolution would only benefit the West before boldly stating that the resolution was akin to Marie Antoinette’s infamous “let them eat cake”. After their POI period, Oman wished to yield to Malaysia, but that was not in order.
More for and against speeches followed. The delegation of Yemen, who were for the resolution, emphasised technology and education, saying it would help grow young minds and aid in the eradication of poverty. The delegation of China had a stance against sanctioning LEDCs as it would inhibit economic growth.
A friendly amendment was proposed to strike the entirety of clause 11. The delegate of Palestine went to the podium for a “to” speech. During the resulting POIs, a POI by the delegate of Israel led to the delegate of Hamas to announce that they were “frankly insulted”. Their grievances were noted. As the amendment was friendly, it passed
An unfriendly amendment was also proposed. This one would strike clause 12 and was proposed by the delegation of Slovenia. The following POIs protested the striking of the clause as it would be striking the clause that addressed corruption. Slovenia backed up their proposal by stating that corruption is an internal affair and not an international one. Slovenia was asked by the delegate of Peru “does Slovenia have anything to hide?”. This led to murmured agreements as the whole situation seemed very suspect (as many countries were eager to point out later).
Following Slovenia’s speech on their unfriendly amendment, the delegation of Norway made an against speech. Norway declared that they do not believe in dictatorship and corruption and thus wanted the clause to remain. A point of grievance was made by Iran as during their speech Norway had insulted the Iranian dictatorship.
The delegates called for a motion to vote, and thus the voting procedure began. The final verdict on the amendment was 23 for and 41 against, the unfriendly amendment did not pass.
Update #2
After the voting procedure, the resolution was bought back up again by the Secretary General.
The first speech was a for speech by the delegation of India. The delegation said in their speech that there are in support of the limitation of multinational corporations because giving corporations free reign would allow for human rights abuses such as sweatshops and child labor, thus, while the corporations are essential, there needs to be a cap on them. The delegation of India also priorities access to clean water in order for people to achieve basic human rights. An against speech was made by the delegation of Kuwait. During their speech the delegate of Kuwait proclaimed that gender equality should not be done by reverse gender discrimination; “discrimination in any form should not be permitted.”
During their POIs, the delegation was heavily questioned on their claim of “reverse gender discrimination”. The delegate replied to these questions bu stating that while it is beneficial to have women in politics, putting quotas on the amount of women is not supported by them.
A to speech was done by the delegation of the United States of America. The delegates declared that they are insulted when the USA has done much for the world and that it is “time to put America first, and in the words of our great President Donald Trump; ‘Make America Great Again.’” They claimed that President Trump has made the “wise decision” to restrict border control and due to the low refugee intake, jobs are going back to Americans. The concluded their speech with “and God bless the Delta Force Commandos.” The delegation of Guatemala made a point of grievance in regards to the speech. POIs resulting from the speech mainly consisted of criticism.
The delegation of Taliban submitted an unfriendly amendment, which would strike clause 6. In their speech, they announced that the resolution put countries together, in cookie cutter positions (this led to a murmur of agreement from a few delegations) and that the clause and resolution do not consider cultural expectations of women.
An against speech to the unfriendly amendment was done by the delegation of Ireland. They emphasised on the detrimental effects of striking the clause, as it would prevent female empowerment and also have an effect on a social, economic and political basis as women are an essential part of society. The delegation made a point, stating that everyone must protect the female capacity to engage in politics to ensure that their voices are heard.
A vote was held for the unfriend amendment. As suspected, an overwhelming majority voted against.
The Chair called for a last round of debate on the now modified resolution. A for speech was made by the delegation of Eritrea. They backed the resolution on the terms that the resolution would help with communication and move towards global progress. The delegation of South Sudan made an against speech, especially abasing clause 5. Their reasons consisted on the terms that the clause was not a reality for many LEDCs such as South Sudan.
In a turn of events, multiple non-voting parties asked for the right to vote. Many were objected against, including the Taliban. However, the delegate of Amnesty International plea was seconded and they were allowed 45 seconds to make their case.
The delegate insisted that since the organisation seeks to protect human rights of all people, they are the right choice to vote as many of their gaols align with SDGs. A vote was held with 35 for and 30 against. For the rest of the Assembly, Amnesty was allowed to vote and the room burst into applause.
Greenpeace also pleaded for a right to vote. They were not given time for a speech due to time constraints, but an immediate vote was held. With 35 for and 31 against, the delegate got the right to vote and the room applauded once again.
Following, a vote for the resolution as a whole was held. With 36 for and 38 against, the resolution did not pass, but the efforts of the delegation of Ecuador were congratulated. As it was a close vote, the right to abstain was not allowed.
BREAKING NEWS
In the middle of the POIs regarding Resolution 2, a siren went off and for a few seconds the Assembly was submerged in complete darkness. Upon the lights coming back on and the siren stopping, the Secretary General informed the rest of the confused Assembly that a crisis has occurred in the Middle East
A video was played informing the GA, in detail, about the crisis. A few minutes in, the video buffered (the Assembly proceeded to clap in good humour) and Parliamentarian Bryce Vessel commented, "it appears the missiles have wiped out our WiFi."
Before the GA was let loose to come up with resolutions to solve the crisis, the Secretary General gave a mini speech, emphasising the importance of the crisis and the subsequent resolutions. "Peace," she said solemnly, "is what we are striving for."
We caught exclusive footage of this event unfolding. It can be seen below.
Note: When the emergency siren blasted, the reporter was terrified and shouted in fear. The words the reporter chose to yell during that brief moment of terror aren't polite. Said words might be heard in the video. The reporter would like to apologize if you have been offended. (But also, it was really scary, the siren was so loud).Update #3
After the emergency call, delegates submitted crisis resolutions. Reporter did not catch the first and second resolutions proposed, however both were voted against. Especially the second one as delegates felt the second crisis was too extreme and not in the interests of the entire UN.
The delegate of South Sudan submitted the third - and supposedly – final resolution of the GA. The chairs allotted just over 30 minutes for its debate, and gave 3 minutes of reading time to the resolution as a whole. The delegate of South Sudan, being the main submitter, delivered the 2 minute speech.
In the proposed resolution, it was stated that Palestine ought to be demilitarised (as stated in Clauses 2 and 5, and supported by Clause 4 which aimed to encourage commerce and trade in the region) completely – the exact opposite of the previous resolution submitted mainly by the delegate of Iran. The resolution requested that Iran and Palestine remove their troops from the region – in addition to a surprising entrance by environmental youth activist Greta Thunberg, who was added mainly in Clause 1 to -and this is a paraphrase of what was proposed– fly into the region on a hot air balloon and be launched from Sweden and dropped down into the military area to issue peace. (It was later discovered that one of our very own reporters from the press team was the brains behind such an interesting clause).
The Coalition of Recognised and Authorised Body of Superpowers (CRABS) was ensured within the resolution, as it will be used to accomplish the monitoring of the region.
The delegate of South Sudan went through much pains to emphasis “that this is a global effort to the ideal of peace”. Shortly after, the delegates of Saudi Arabia, Paraguay and Nigeria were recognised by the chair for Points of Information.
“We want to achieve this girl’s dreams”, said the delegate of South Sudan with extreme conviction when questioned on the inclusion of Thunberg within their resolution. This prompted a widespread not-in-order clapping, one of the many that has been occurring throughout this General Assembly.
When asked why Western superpowers were involved within the resolution, the delegates of South Sudan answered that countries such as the United Kingdom and France are not within the conflicting region “where tensions are highest.” The delegates also took care to point out that Western bias was addressed in Clause 9 of the resolution. “This is a global crisis that must be resolved, all countries have a say,” one of the delegates of Sudan stated.
The delegates of Norway were brought onto the podium for an against speech of the resolution, as they claimed it was impossible for the Norwegian government to allow the actions of Clause 10. Meaning, the government did not deem it safe – or, indeed, even possible – for Greta Thunberg to be put in the middle of the region where the conflict is thickest. “We are concerned about the safety of hot air balloon travel,” said one of the delegates when realising that further explanation must be given to the rest of the assembly. “It is far safer for her to protest with other likeminded students rather than to fly into a war zone,” defended the delegates. It was clear to the reporter that they were growing increasingly worried that the some of the delegates within the assembly were already convinced by the resolution. Applause erupted when one of the delegates within the assembly motioned for it. The Chair denied such a thing, but the assembly was clearly feeling adventurous, as they clapped and cheered anyways.
When points of information were introduced and the delegation of Norway was asked on explaining their reluctance on Thunberg’s involvement, they answered that they “question the feasibility of dropping a human from such a height.” They also pointed out the various dangers of hot air balloon travel – concerns such as crashing with airplanes, bomb strikes, and other such factors. Furthermore, said the delegate, the distance between the proposed balloon launchpad (Sweden) to the region was next to impossible.
One of the delegates of South Sudan was chosen for a point of information and demanded, implicitly, on whether the delegation of Norway – the “male delegation,” emphasised the delegate – was being sexist or not. The delegates of Norway defended that they were not being sexist, that they would do this with any gender, because they were solely “interested in preserving a life […] the act of launching an air balloon and flying into a war zone is.” The reporter, unfortunately, could not catch the last bit said.
When asked to who they would yield to, the delegates of Norway delivered an impassioned yield: “The delegates yield this time to Greta Thunberg’s immense contribution–“ and were met with deafening applause before they could finish their sentence. The chair said “that will not been order”– and the delegate of Norway yielded to the chair within the ongoing applause.
The delegate of Poland motioned to move to voting procedure, which was objected by the assembly, but the chairs moved to vote for voting procedure anyways.
The votes were: 38 votes for, 23 against, 10 abstentions. The resolution passed.
Update #4
A surprising fourth resolution was proposed by the delegate of Poland in the tail-end of the fourth and final debate of the General Assembly. The chairs allotted a maximum of ten minutes to the resolution, and stated that all speeches on the resolution were to be restricted to one minutes. The main submitter speeches, however, were still given two minutes.
“This resolution is the best resolution to solve the crisis at hand,” said the delegate of Poland before moving onto their speech and presenting their resolution. Among the three main things the resolution addresses, two of them were non infringement of national sovereignty and the prevention of conflict spillover in neighbouring countries. They also introduced a treaty of mutually assured destruction and demilitarised zone.
Shortly after some discussion between the chairs and the assembly, a moderated caucus was called for ‘for-against-to’ one minute speeches. Delegates would step up to the nearest microphone and deliver their speech.
Peru, Saudi Arabia and Austria were all against the resolution. The reporter would like to note that once again, a food metaphor was used within a speech. “The resolution here is like a donut,” said the delegate of Peru. "It has a giant hole in the middle of it." “The resolution ISABELA is very ineffective” was another statement heard.
The chairs moved to voting procedure, but the votes were 25-25. In the face of this, the chairs said that the assembly could not abstain from voting, and could only vote for ‘for-against’.
The resolution did not pass.
Closing Ceremony - Video
Closing Ceremony.mp4