If you could be anyone for a day, who would that be?
‘I would be Mr. Vladimir Putin.’
Lina Ivanova – Foley’s School
If you could be anyone for a day, who would that be?
‘I would be Mr. Vladimir Putin.’
Lina Ivanova – Foley’s School
What is the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?
The best piece of advice I’ve received was to remain calm and avoid cringe-y silences.
Chloe Hadjiantoniou, American Academy Larnaca
What is the best advice you’ve ever received?
“Don’t say what you actually think in an interview.”
Ma MingXi, The G C School Of Careers
“You have Mozam-piqued my interest.”
“The delegate of Saudi Arabia’s public speaking skills are outstanding.”
“I’m not a photographer but I can picture me and you together.”
“Lost in the delegate of Palestine’s eyes.”
“Thanks for all those random notes. Hope your feet hurt more than ours do.”
“The delegate of the UK is very energetic and has delivered some excellent speeches.”
17:40 After a full day of debating, our delegates finally get a time to relax, when our two Chairs raise 13 superlatives. Our delegates had a lot of fun when voting for the winners. Below are the questions and the winners.
5:45 pm The voting procedure begins, and with 40 votes for, 17 votes against and 2 abstentions, the resolution passes. The delegates are delighted when the Chair announces that it’s time to reveal the confessions gathered in the box.
17:10 pm The delegate of Ethiopia stresses the importance of the question at hand, and how crucial it is that the resolution agreed upon on, is not at all problematic or flawed. More specifically, the delegate speaks about clause 3 which refers to the accession of African-American and Native-American history in international history syllabuses, and how this only helps or solves the problem in America. Although this was a question that was clarified previously, the delegate mentioned “This resolution may cause confusion, and in the delegate’s mind this makes the resolution weak.”
17:20 pm The delegate of Brazil stresses the same point, focusing on the mistake or confusion caused by clause 3. He added that in the future history teachers might mark this resolution as biased or as propaganda, not only commenting that it is weak (as the delegate of Ethiopia mentioned before) but also not helpful to the question at hand. Therefore the delegate urges all delegates to vote against this resolution.
5:15 pm After voting for superlatives, it’s time for the delegates to get back to work and debate the final resolution of the day. This resolution has been submitted by Ukraine, on combating the glorification of Nazism and Neo-Nazism. The delegate takes the stage, emphasising the importance of measures for prevention, and education.
“This is an issue that involves us all.“
The floor is handed over to the delegate of China, who focuses on legal measures that can be implemented, such as the creation of specialised centres to work alongside prisons, where hate crime offenders could be sent to. The delegate of Afghanistan questions whether such a measure would be effective, which China counters.
“If you could change their mindsets, even by a little, then your job is done.“
3:48 pm The delegate of Spain also takes the stage to speak against the resolution, describing it as ‘naive’ and ‘romanticised’, and accepts a point of information from the UK, which supports Spain’s arguments. After a motion to extend debate time, the delegate of Israel also takes the stage to attack the resolution, attacking particularly the suggestion to interview ordinary people about their beliefs on people of different colour. The delegates of Albania and Lebanon make points of information, also attacking the vague nature of the resolution.
3:55 pm With 18 votes for, 39 votes against and no abstentions, the resolution does not pass. The Chairs also announce the introduction of superlatives, which will be voted for after the break.
15:25 The delegate of North Korea begins her attack speech and three words stood out “Naivety”, “Ignorance”, “Reluctance”. She urged the house to vote against this resolution as it is “written in naivety”, “proves the ignorance of the countries who wrote it” and their “reluctance to live in the present”. Specifically, the two lined clause 1 is deemed too short and lacking information. The delegate of North Korea repeats several times:
“The law cannot change people’s opinions. If it could then the KKK, or ISIS would not have risen. It is also in the people’s rights to have these ideologies as part of freedom of speech and expression”.
Everyone in the room strongly disagrees and the delegate of the UK mockingly shouts: “Is it not ironic that this is North Korea talking about freedom of speech?”. Cheers and applause follow.
15:43 The delegate of Ethiopia’s message was much simpler stating: “This resolution offers no solution to the question at hand”. The delegate then proceeds by saying several examples of clauses that are too naive and vague to be voted for. In the end the delegate simply states: “I urge all delegates to vote against this resolution as it offers no real solution to this problem”.
3:10 pm The next resolution to be debated has been submitted by the delegate of Nicaragua on combating the glorification of Nazism and Neo-Nazism. The delegate of Nicaragua takes the floor, presenting Clause 2 that urges legislative and educational measures, and Clause 3, that stresses the importance of media and social networks. Points of information are made by Chile Kazakhstan and Austria.
3:20 pm The floor is given to the delegate of Mexico, who proceeds to emphasise the importance of Clause 2, stating that the youth is the future of the world, and thus improving education is a vital step.
3:30 pm The delegate of Venezuela also takes the stage to defend the resolution. The delegate accepts one point of information from Ukraine, who claims that Clause 8, which expresses deep concern about the increased support of extremist parties that are racist or xenophobic in character, is redundant. Venezuela states that the clause is important in explaining the reasons behind the need for measures, and the debate moves to time against.
2:35 pm The delegate of Saudi Arabia proposes an amendment, adding another clause calling the creation of a new legal instrument granting location-based protection for critical natural resources during armed conflicts. The delegate proceeds to defend their amendment, stating that it will make the detection of such resources more effective. The amendment passes with an overwhelming majority.
2:41 pm The delegate of Lebanon takes the floor against the resolution, saying that the purchase of governmental mines is not an appropriate suggestion, and accepts a point of information from India. The floor is then opened to anyone wishing to speak for or against the resolution, and the delegate of Israel takes the stage to defend the resolution. Another amendment is proposed, this time by the delegate of Afghanistan, to strike clause 6, which suggests the setting up of a private organisation to purchase governmental mines. This raises several points of information, and the delegate of the UK takes the stage to attack the amendment. The resolution does not pass, due to an overwhelming vote against.
“They are not going to purchase them (the government mines) with cookies or flowers!”
3:01 pm South Korea’s resolution, on the other hand, appeared to have interested the delegates. with three speeches for, one speech against, and two amendments proposed by the delegates, our two chairs proceed to voting of this resolution. With votes 47 for, votes 9 against and 1 vote in abstention, this resolution has passed. GA4 is delighted to announce that this 3rd resolution marks the passing of resolutions on all three topics.
2:05 pm After our fun ice breaker, the debate continues. Panama takes the floor, beginning by saying that this resolution offers some solution to the problem, but not entirely.
“Clause 7“, the delegate continues, “suggests that all member countries should give 1% or 2% of their funds annually to invest in safe diamond mining equipment. This is absurd as not all member countries trade blood diamonds and therefore should not have to give this percentage.“
With this, the delegate concluded that this resolution is not completely effective. Voting proceeded and with 26 votes for, 32 votes against and 2 abstentions, the resolution does not pass.
2:30 pm Denmark then takes the floor beginning by saying that this resolution is extremely effective and involves taking decisive and solid measures to combat this issue. She continues by emphasising the urgency of this matter, stating:
“Illegal raw diamond trade has funded many wars and led to the death of millions.” She then ended her speech by promoting education: “Educate, enlighten, empower.“
Our two Chairs decide that, since many delegates were repeatedly late, they should be punished. So all the delegates who were late were split into two groups, Group 1 and Group 2 and a lip-synching and dancing competition began. Overcoming some technical difficulties the two groups competed, and Group 2 won.
With a confident and convincing manner, the delegate of South Korea begins his speech on prevention of illegal trade of raw diamonds and minerals. He thoroughly explains some of the clauses in the resolution, including clause 10 which “addresses the issue at core” as a statistical database will be set up to provide information on mineral trade.
“If the house want this huge leap forward to be taken,” the delegate continues, “the delegate of South Korea urges all other delegates to vote for this resolution!“
2:00 pm Amendment by Saudi Arabia to replace all mentions of the ICC with the environmental panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The delegate of Saudi Arabia makes a speech, saying that several countries do not abide by the ICC. To a point of information asking the delegate if they are accusing UN members of participating in illegal diamond trade, the delegate replies “It is not an accusation. It’s a mere fact. You can Google it”. The amendment passes successfully.
12:52 pm Due to time constraints, a 5 minute open debate is issued and the delegate of Sweden takes the stage to speak against the resolution. The delegate claims that the resolution suggests measures, such as the provision of centers of education, which are irrelevant to the issue in question. The delegate of Lebanon makes a long point of information, to which the speaker eventually responded with: “Was that a question?”.
12:50 pm The delegate of Senegal states that the resolution “is a collective effort” to eradicate illegal Diamond and Mineral trade. The delegate then proceeds by pointing out several clauses and sub-clauses that exactly “solve effectively and efficiently” the question at hand. However, this raises several eyebrows in the room and, although many delegated wanted to ask points of information, only one is accepted and recognized. Since there was some spare time, our two Chairs ask if there are any delegates in the house willing to speak for this resolution. In the absence of a delegate speaking for, the Chairs invite an open debate, where all delegates could speak for or against the matter.
If you could do any job for just a day, what would it be?
‘I would be an artist, because when I draw it’s like I’m in a whole different world, like nothing else matters. It’s what I am passionate about and what I admire.’
Niovi Kyprianidi, The Falcon School
12:32 pm The delegates, refreshed after a 5 minute snapchat break move on to the next resolution. This one is on preventing the illegal raw diamond and mineral trade for the funding of armed conflicts by measures such as making the diamond certification process more efficient, and investing on safe diamond mining equipment. The main submitter, Lebanon, takes the stage. The delegate states how the resolution not only addresses the question of blood diamonds, but also issues such as child labour. The delegate accepts three points of information, from Cameroon, Libya (accidentally), India and Brazil, asking for the clarification of certain acronyms.
12:22 pm After two speeches for and three speeches against Spain’s resolution, the Chairs proceed with the voting. Even though most expected the Resolution to be established, only 22 countries vote for, while 35 vote against and 4 are abstention votes. With another failed resolution, a five minute break is due.
12:13 pm The delegate of Afghanistan begins his speech against the resolution of Spain by simply stating that, with the exception of Nazi history being accessible through the school curriculum, all other clauses prove vague and do not solve the problems at hand. The delegate then proceeds by giving numerous examples of clauses that indeed offer no solution. For example, school trips to other countries, housing of refugees and addition of more suitable personnel to the justice system, all prove reluctant to solve the question in hand.
12:20 pm The delegate of Saudi Arabia motions to extend debate time, and proceeds to make a speech. The delegate passionately attacks the resolution on its lack of legal measures. Israel makes a point of information.
‘It is impearative to adress the law in a legal committee, FYI.’
12:04 pm The delegate of India speaks against the resolution, claiming that it is naive, particularly in clause 3, which only refers to policemen as members of the judiciary, and clause 5, which suggests stricter rules on the ‘Terms and Conditions’ of social medias.
“Who actually reads the Terms and Conditions before signing up somewhere?”
The delegate also attacks clause 8 which suggests rallies, stating that these rallies may turn violent. South Korea, Khazagstan Brazil all makes points of information, all of which support the idea that the resolution is naive and vague.
12:03 pm The delegate of Georgia is more than eager to urge the delegates to vote for this resolution. The delegate mentions that this resolution was filled with clauses that will surely combat neo-Nazism. She begins by saying that the best way to extinguish Nazism, neo-Nazism and racism in general is through education, and the access to Nazi history in the school curriculum achieves just that. Few points of information are raised, and the majority of the house seems to be convinced.
11:53 am The next debate begins, once again on a resolution combating the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism. This one has been submitted by Spain, and suggests measures such as the compulsory provision of information relating to Nazism in schools, and stricter regulations and punishments on the media. The delegate defends clause 1 and 6, which promote innovative educational ideas, such as the tolerance of different cultures. Denmark, Bolivia, Malaysia, Sweden and Romania all submit points of information, asking the delegate to expand on certain measures. The delegate of Spain emphasises the importance of promoting love and acceptance, particularly in schools.
11:39 am The time against the resolution continues and the delegate of Israel takes the stage, stating the futility of trying to control the media.
‘The news will be as controversial and racist as they can.’
The delegates of the UK, Madagascar and Cambodia all make points of information, and the delegate of Israel defends his argument.
11:30 Mozambique begins with saying that Cambodia’s resolution is extremely naive, vague and impossible to be established. “The resolution sated that the Nazi era should be put in the history curriculum, however this could harm the initial curriculum of the country, as curriculum of history varies vastly between countries.”, stated the delegate of Mozambique and then added, “Clause 3 in the resolution states that media should play a positive role in combating racism by not giving an opinion and simply giving the facts. This is very naive and out of our control and thus cannot be done.” She closed with “The last clause stated that the ideology of thinking out of the box will be promoted, however this statement is very subjective and again vague”. Many points of information arise and making the delegate hesitate, but in the end she answers.
How did you choose your outfit today?
“I actually forgot the pants that I was meant to wear, but I had bought the shirt and the blazer, so I just picked a skirt that I like.”
Viveka Rose Castro, Townshed International School
10:41 am The delegate of Cambodia takes the stage next, in order to defend their resolution on combating Nazism and neo-Nazism. The delegate makes a heartfelt speech, emphasising the importance of placing the focus on youth. China makes a point of information, inquiring over clause 4, which addresses police brutality. The delegate of Bangladesh takes the stage next, praising clause 7, which recommends the participation of all minorities in each country’s Parliament, and encourages all delegates to vote for the resolution, ‘for the sake of humanitarianism, common courtesy and decorum’. The delegate of the UK proposes an amendment. Remove clause 8 which suggests the development of an international organisation responsible for tracking and eliminating suspicious online activity. The delegate of Ethiopia speaks against the amendment, stating their disagreement with the reasoning behind the amendment. The amendment passes with an overwhelming majority, and clause 8 is deleted.