Goodbye to the Special Committee!

11.03 a.m: The delegate of Egypt announces the withdrawal of the country from the UN and welcomes any military action. The delegate of Saudi Arabia follows suit, and Egypt announces cooperation with North Korea. The delegate of the USA suggests removing all the clauses suggested by Egypt, but the action is opposed by the Chairs, who find the contributions of the delegate of Egypt important to the debate.


The delegate of Egypt reinforces his intention to ally with North Korea, and the chaos in the room continues, with Saudi Arabia retracting his stance and choosing to remain in the UN. The Chairs try to calm the room.

Chair Maria Mandritis: We ended on a clause asking for cooperation between nations.

Delegate of the USA: Member nations.

11.29 a.m: The Chairs read out the Committee’s confessions, quickly move through superlatives (Singapoore wins best outfits and France wins Most Likely to become a dictator), and take a last picture together before the Committee officially ends for the year.


Special Committee: Tensions between France and Egypt rise once more

10.40 a.m: The delegate of Egypt comes up to make a speech for his clause, which calls for the creation of the International Cybernetics and Prosthesis Organisation which would be a branch of the United Nations Development Program. This Organisation would be focusing on the scientific and research aspects of cybernetics and prosthetics, unlike the previously suggested organisation which would focus on the legal side of the issue. The delegate of the USA makes a point of information attacking the clause, calling it vague due to measures to be taken by the proposed organisation like deciding of a stance for countries who do not already have a ‘hard stance’.

10.48 a.m: The delegate of France makes a speech against the clause, enhancing the USA’s point that the clause suggested is vague and irrelevant. Several delegates make points of information, and the tensions in the room rise.


Delegate of Saudi Arabia: ‘Does the delegate not contradict himself by calling the clause both overly long and vague at the same time?’

Delegate of France: ‘This delegate has already stated that it is the quantity and not the quality that matters.’

Delegate of Russia: ‘You mean the quality and not the quantity.’


Delegate of France: ‘Can the delegate make his point in the form of the question?’

Delegate of Egypt: ‘I’m getting there. Wait.’

Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘Whoa!’


Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘I was so dead this morning and now I’m so alive!’

The clause passes but is vetoed by France, China and the USA, and France calls for a P 5 caucus, and Chair Andreas Economides returns with news that the P 5 will be consulting the Security Council.

The P5 return after being unable to talk to the Security Council and make an announcement. France states that all the P 5 members will be vetoing the clause, before handing the podium to the delegate of Russia.

Delegate of France: ‘I will leave it to Daniella.’

Delegate of Russia: ‘To me?!’

The P 5 air their grievances with Egypt, but the Chairs stop the debate and move to the last clause, which ironically suggests cooperation between member states. The clause is voted for without a speech, and quickly passes so that Saudi Arabia and Egypt can make an announcement of their own.

Special Committee: Congratulations to our delegates!

10.27 a.m: The delegate of the United Arab Emirates defends her clause calling for the creation of Committee on Legal Affairs for Prosthesis and Cybernetics under the Jurisdiction of the international Court of Justice. The Committee would provide member states with guidelines on the development of prosthesis and cybernesis. The delegate of the Russian Federation suggests an amendment, adding that human augmentation for unethical reasons such as physical enhancements, which the delegate of Egypt supports, making a point of information stating the importance of defining the conditions under which human prosthetics can be used. The amendment passes with an overwhelming majority. The debate pauses for a few minutes, for the delegates of Russia and France to receive ‘Best Delegate’ certificates, and congratulations form their peers. The voting resumes for the clause, which passes unanimously.


Special Committee: Debate paused for a press conference with Egypt and Russia

9.50 a.m: The delegates of Russia and Egypt make a joint press conference before the USA’s clause, pointing out the excessive spending on the military by the USA, and warning for the possibility of future developments such as super-soldiers. The delegate of the USA takes stage to say that the US is not planning to start World War 3, not with exosuits or supersoldiers as suggested by Russia and Egypt. The delegate of Egypt then asks the US if they are preparing for a future alien attack, to which the US responds that they are aware of alien life and are preparing for possible attacks, but do not intend to start a war. Chair Andreas Economides points out that the USA’s plan to prepare for alien invasion is similar to Hitler’s plan to prepare for World War 2, to which the delegate responds that it is also similar to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, eliciting gasps from the room. The press conference starts getting out of hand, and the Chairs bring the discussion to the delegate of the USA’s clause.


10.02 a.m: The clause in question – which has incidentally been co-submitted by Russia – calls for the creation of a UN-led body called the Human Enhancement Limiting Organisation, which among other things will be in charge of production of prosthetic limbs. The delegate defends his clause, highlighting the importance of measures such as encryption chips in prosthetics to ensure that the function of the limbs will change according to the users’ age and to protect against hacking. The delegate of Russia points out that such chips will be costly, but the delegate of the USA replies that the MUN Special Committee has unlimited funding.

10.13 a.m: Before time against can begin, a picture of E.T. appears on the board. ‘Oh on’, exclaims Chair Andreas Economides, ‘The USA was right.’ After the laughter that follows, the delegate of Egypt steps up to the podium to point out the aggressive nature of some of the President of the USA’s remarks, and suggest that technology in the hands of the USA could be dangerous. He goes on to question the fairness of giving older people limbs that cannot function better than their own limbs would. The vote begins, and the clause ties, with delegates calling for a motion to divide the house, with 5 votes for, 5 against and 4 abstentions. The clause ties again, and does not pass.

Special Committee: Debating operatives

9.30 a.m: With the debate on pre-ambs quickly finished, the delegates move to debating operative clauses. The first clause is Russia’s, endorsing the participation of all member states in competitive events such as the Cybathlon. The delegate of Russia emphasizes the importance of such competitions to give incentives for the member states to improve human mechanics technology. The clause receives unanimous support.

9.34 a.m: Next is a clause by the delegate of France, that requests an increase in funding by the UN of hospitals treating medically impaired patients in developing countries. The delegate makes an emotive speech, highlighting the difficulty that people in developing countries to afford prosthetics, or even trips to and from the hospital.


The delegate of Switzerland points out that the extra funding would not help countries and areas that do not have the expertise regarding prosthetics, but the delegate of France responds that the extra funding would encourage developing countries to expand their knowledge and equipment. The delegate of Egypt submits an amendment, adding a sub-clause that would allow the hospitals that would receive the funding to conduct their own research.  The delegate of Germany makes a point of information, saying that corruption in some developing countries may affect the usage of funds. to which Egypt replies that although it is a problem, further clauses could deal with it. The amendment passes unanimously, as does the clause, without Chair Maria Mandritis noticing.

Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘Wait we have to pass the amendment.’

Chair Andreas Economides: ‘We did.’

Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘The amendment and the clause?’

Chair Andreas Economides: ‘Yeah.’

Chair Maria Mandritis claps delightedly.

Special Committee: A dynamic beginning to the day

9.17 a.m: Punishment for the delegate of the USA is to butt spell ‘Russian Federation’ to the tune of the USSR national anthem, to which the delegate of Russia sings along.


9.18 a.m: The debate of topic 2 resumes with a clause by Germany, which calls for the arrangement of a specialized scientific committee of scientists, medical professionals and other relevant persons that will work alongside the World Health Organisation to monitor genome editing. With no speeches against, voting begins and the clause passes with 13 votes for and 1 amendment.

9.20 a.m: Topic 2 ends and topic 3, human mechanics begins with a press conference with IBC (International Bioethics Committee). The delegate of Egypt, taking on the role of the representative points out the lack of information that the public has regarding the issue, leading to vagueness and hesitation, as well as the dangers of leaving new technology solely in the hands of the military, bringing up the example of the atomic bomb (IBC representative: ‘Thank you America’).

9.26 a.m: The debate begins on a pre-amb by Russia, noting the participation of 25 nations in the world’s first Cybathlon. The pre-amb passes unanimously, and France takes the stage to defend his pre-amb acknowledging the financial burden of prosthetics.

Interview with Carsten Lederer, Guest speaker at Special Committee on Bioethics

What are some Bioethics concerns you have to think about in particular in your area of research?

Well, the risk – benefit analysis is a major concern because I don’t work on permanent correction of the germline or in neutral lethal diseases so we normally deal with adolescents or adults in therapy and there the concern is you know, is the risk justified by the benefit that the patient gets. In Cyprus in particular because you have disease management which is very successful so even the conventional treatment of bone marrow transplantation is not taken up for most Cypriot patients but that’s also because it’s not available here. You have to go abroad to do it. But it’s also because they feel that the management regiment is safe. So do you want to put them through you know this kind of treatment and the danger of developing cancer later on against them having a reasonable life at the moment. That is of course not my decision, but that is something that is relevant. The other point is how to get things effective against how to get things safe. Initially there was a huge discussion for thalassemia about whether we should give complete chemotherapy, and now it turns out that yes we should. But the initial discussion was you know, thalassemia is not lethal, with management, so we should just mildly do that, which is safer, but is probably not efficient and then you might as well not do the therapy at all. So for these type of concerns you’re going to know the answer with time, when you get the data in from those initial experiments.

You mentioned that when it comes to Bioethics, you are not only concerned about the possible effects of using a particular technique, but also about the effects of not implementing it. Could you expand on that? 

Well if you don’t provide a therapy at all, for some patients, they die, because while management is good in Cyprus, it’s not that widely developed so it’s not available in other countries. And while you may not be able to treat every patient there, maybe you will be able to help some of them doing this. So providing therapies is an obligation, and that’s something we work for so you always have to balance this, you know, the dangers like what if editing the germline endangers them in the future or opens the floodgate for society going for wider applications, for cosmetic research and so on, against the responsibility you have towards the patient who has a right to be treated with the best treatment available.

Could you tell us about Global Globin 2020? What is the goal and what is being done right now?

Our laboratory has the biggest, most important database on hemoglobinopathies worldwide, that’s the Ithanet Portal, and we got involved with Global Globin 2020 because the project is about mapping mutations in thalassemia in different countries. It was created by the Human Variome Project and they’re inherently interested in human variations and single nucleotide polymorphisms and they saw that our data base was probably the best around for this kind of analysis and for integrating data. The Human Variant Project is based in Australia and on these molecular aspects and they see  that now that the genome has been completely sequenced they plan from being molecular focused on being diagnostic and societal focused, to now apply the knowledge we’ve gained as benefit to society. So Global Globin 2020 wants to apply the technologies available to us also to low and middle – income countries. There are 40 countries involved already with representatives in the project. At the moment it’s all on finding money. Different organisations fund for network meetings and so on and the idea is that we actually implement the modern countries’ centers of excellence from which then we can start implementing similar diagnostic centers and screening programs also in other countries. The focus there is on Africa for Sickle Cell Disease and on South East Asia for thalassemia, because there’s huge poverty there, low income generally and absence of prevention programs, that cause huge suffering.

Other than thalassemia and sickle cell disease, what are other areas where you’d be interested in seeing the application of genome editing?

Well genome editing can also be used to do research. So you can knock out stuff and find out what it does basically. The classic approach was to look at mutants and see the phenotype and then find out what causes the phenotype and the mutation to take place. Now it’s the other way around, we can do reverse genetics and introduce a mutation and you know where and what takes place so you can chart the phenotype, so you can confidently map things. You can find out what different things do. Because our department is the thalassemia department so we really look at thalassemias and rare anemias. There are more diseases that also affect your blood, which affect a smaller proportion of people, that are much more diverse and one of the scientific programs we’ve proposed now is to look into other rare anemias. Of course, worldwide thalassemia is still rare, only in Cyprus and European countries, so we could also look at other anemias that can be treated with similar types of methods.

Special Committee: War? No war.

17.02 p.m: France makes an announcement, apologizing on behalf of the P 5 for getting away from the point of the debate, and encourages the other members of the committee to stay focused on the matter at hand and not get carried away with personal insults. Following this, Egypt and Saudi Arabia make a joint speech, announcing their intention to declare war on France, due to the insults of the delegate against Egypt, Saudi Arabia and France. The war will begin with an oil and fuel embargo and the retraction of deals for arms with France. The chairs choose not to allow the war, due to time constraints, and the committee sighs in disappointment.


17.17 p.m: The debate resumes and Russia comes up to defend her clause which is about the setting up of an international forum to enable measures such as discussing prospective medical uses of bio engineering the human genome and the aiding of making decisions on laws related to genetic modification. The delegate of Germany raises the point that the Bioethics Committee is one such forum, and the delegate of Russia responds by saying that the progress made in genome editing is very rapid and the creation of a forum would be efficient. France attacks the clause, but the clause passes with 12 votes for.

17.23 p.m: The clause by Egypt calling for an increase in funding of research universities is supported by Russia, who emphasizes the important of research. The clause passes unanimously, and the Committee ends for the day.

Special Committee: Tensions between France and Russia

16.15 p.m: After a short break, which was spent reading a few of the delegates’ confessions, France comes up to the podium to speak for his clause, which trusts UN member states to spread knowledge of bio engineering through measures such as promoting education and training at all levels. The delegate firsts refuses any points of information, eliciting surprise from the room, before changing his mind and accepting any and all. The delegate of Germany then stands up to support the clause, describing it as a ‘great first step’. The delegate of Egypt disagrees and makes a speech attacking the clause as being too vague to be effective.

Delegate of Egypt: ‘Does it get more vague than this?’


The clause fails to pass, with 7 votes against, 6 for and 1 abstention.

16.35 p.m: The debate moves to a clause by the USA, which demands the introduction of the Human Genome Altering Act which will limit the use of bio engineering only for certain health conditions, and ensure that experiments on the human genome will not be performed until the technology is proven to be safe and controlled. The delegate of France also makes a speech supporting the clause and yields the floor to the chairs. The delegate of Russia stands up to make a speech against the clause, stating that an upcoming clause submitted by Russia suggests similar but more detailed measures. After a confrontation in which France accuses Russia of ‘violating every human right on Earth’ before rephrasing his point, Russia raises a point of order. France refuses to apologize, stating that the rephrasing makes Russia’s point invalid, and suggests calling the Secretary General to review the situation. The delegate of Russia responds:

‘The delegation of Russia accepts France’s non apology as she is more concerned with saving children from disease’.

The room claps, but is stopped by Chair Maria Mandritis, who says

‘Stop clapping.’

The clause is passed but vetoed by Russia, and a P 5 caucus is called.

17:01 p.m: Russia retracts her veto, and the clause passes with 10 votes for and 4 abstentions.

Special Committee: Debating operative clauses

15.25 p.m: The delegate of Japan comes up to support her clause that urges the minimizing pf risks associated with bio engineering through measures such as the use of computer models and human embryos. The clause earns support from Switzerland and Singapore who make points of information pointing out the possible benefits of the clause.


The clause is amended by Egypt, adding sub sub clauses that mention increased funding for research groups aimed specifically at improving automated procedures in finding errors. The amendment passes with 13 votes for and 1 against, and the clause passes unanimously.

15.36 p.m: The clause by the UK calling upon the work of regulatory authorities to monitor research proposals and centers involved in embryonic stem cells research causes concern for the delegate of Germany, who wonders over the ethical issue of experimenting on embryonic cells. The delegate of Russia makes a point of information supporting the clause and pointing out its possible benefits, such as the increased reliability of results. With no speeches against the clause, voting begins and the clause is passed.

Delegate of USA: We should fail more clauses.

Delegate of Egypt: We’re too nice.

Chair Maria Mandritis: I’m not supposed to say anything but… Do as you will.

Special Committee: The debate on preams ends!

15:15 p.m: France’s pre-am showing concern over the use of germline editing is passed despite 2 votes against.

15:17 p.m: Egypt’s pre-am is showing concern over the short-lived nature of CRISPR -Cas9 and the lack of knowledge that entails. The delegate of Switzerland points out that the delegate of Egypt previously voted for a pre-am that outlined the positive aspects of CRISPR technology, and votes against it but the pre-am passes with 13 votes for.

15:21 p.m: The delegated of Australia comes up to defend his pream that recalls that Bioethics is derived  from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The pream does not pass with a majority vote against.


Special Committee: Debating Topic 2!

14:54 p.m: The debate begins with Brazil’s clause recognizing that bio engineering the genome was introduced after World War 2. The clause is quickly passed with 12 votes for and 2 against.

14:58 p.m: The pre-am by China defining the process of bio engineering, which is supported by France as being clear, and is passed as well with a unanimous vote for.

15:00 p.m: The USA defends a pre-am that notes that in experiments involving CRISPR techiniques it is necessary to consider off target effects similarly passes.

15:02 p.m: The pre-ams of the UK recalling previous work on bioethics and the protocol prohibiting the cloning of human beings, and of Russia, defining CRISPR pass as well, and so does Japan’s pre-am showing awareness of existing applications of genetic editing and condemning the use of eugenics respectively.

15:12 p.m: Germany’s pre-am condemning the sue of eugenics is amended by France, changing the definition of eugenics to positive eugenics, which specifically refers to use of genome editing for purely physical characteristics. It is then passed with an overwhelming majority.

Special Committee: Press Conference with CRISPR and the ETC

14.35 p.m: Before the debate on topic 2, bioengineering the human genome, begins, the delegates are entertained by Chair Andreas Economides with a series of jokes.

”It was an emotional wedding. Even the cake was in tiers.”

”What does a house wear? A dress.”

”There was an explosion in a cheese factory in France. De Brie everywhere.”

14.42 p.m: To set up the mood for the debate, the delegates of Switzerland and Saudi Arabia briefly become representatives of CRISPR and ETC (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) respectively. The representative of CRISPR gives an overview of the current developments and research by the organisation, while the representative of ETC points out the potentially unethical uses of genome editing and shows clear hesitation in accepting the use of such a technique, stating concerns such as the creation of a superhuman race and the use for cosmetics and eugenics.

Special Committee: The P 5 use their power!

13.29 p.m: The clause by Egypt Committee Against Biological crimes, which would aid countries in setting up regulations and provide help in improving provision systems. The delegate points out the importance of improving the legal framework of organ transplant systems, and the delegate of France makes a point of information supporting Egypt’s proposal.

Delegate of France: Doesn’t the delegate agree that this is a wonderful clause?

Chair Andreas Economides: Aww


France then makes a speech for the clause, and the clause passes unaninously with no speeches against.

13.39 p.m: Saudi Arabia proposes a sub-committee of the World Health Organisation, called the International Transplant Organisation, which would track organs as they are transported, carry quality checks on doctors in charge of transplant and aid victims of trafficking. The delegate of the USA makes a point of information, saying that the tracking of organs may give opportunities to the black market. Saudi Arabia counters this, suggesting possible solutions.

Delegate of the USA: Motion to follow up.

Delegate of Saudi Arabia: Denied.

13.50 p.m: The delegate of France makes a speech against the clause, calling it ‘delusional’, and pointing out the impracticality of tracking organ, which offends the delegate of Switzerland and Egypt on behalf of the delegate of Saudi Arabia.

Egypt: The tone of the delegate of France challenges the mental capabilities of the delegate of Saudi Arabia. The phrasing is offensive.

France: Now I’m offended.

The voting begins, and the clause passes but is vetoed by all 5 permanent members.

Special Committee: A new organisation is created!

12.55 p.m: The delegate of Switzerland takes the podium to defend her clause, suggesting the creation of a new organisation, the United Nations World Organ Transplant Organisation, which will be responsible for issues such as the ethical distribution of organs worldwide.


The delegate expands on the practical implementation of her measure, suggesting an artificially – operated system which will categorize individuals according to factors such as the severity of their conditions, socioeconomic factors and location.

13.04 p.m: The delegate of Germany stands up to make a speech against the clause, stating that the clause has potential but the phrasing of some points weakens its effectiveness. The voting procedure begins, and the clause passes with 12 votes for and 2 amendments.

Special Committee: Another proposed organisation

13.13 p.m: The next clause by the Russian Federation encourages research in areas such as embryonic stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells and 3D printing of organs. The delegate emphasizes the importance of expanding the methods available for organ transplants and confidently defends the clause. No speeches are made against the clause, and it passes unanimously.


13.17 p.m: The delegate of the USA takes the stage to defend his clause suggesting the creation of another organisation, the International Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation, that will encourage countries to implement either a mandatory organ donation or an opt – out system. The delegate of France asks for clarification of the idea of a mandatory organ donation scheme, which according to the delegate of the USA refers to a scheme similar to the opt-out scheme. France suggests the replacement of the word mandatory with opt out, and the USA suggests the amendment which is passed. The delegate of Russia makes a speech against the clause, warning of the possibility of children being pressured into giving their organs by their parents. The clause does not pass after a majority vote against.

Special Committee: France and USA clash

12.33 p.m: The next clause to be debated has been proposed by France and recommends that UN member states prohibit the indirect or direct supply to countries who have a history of violating human rights. The delegate of France makes an emotive and passionate speech, urging the importance of protecting citizens’ human rights. The delegate of China makes a point of information, pointing out the possible benefits of such a clause, while the delegate of Germany points out possible repercussions of cutting off trade relations on the citizens of such countries. The delegate of Egypt also makes a speech supporting the clause, stating the necessity of such measures as an incentive to countries to prevent human rights violations.

Delegate of Egypt: ‘The delegate urges everyone to vote for this clause as it is.. nice.’

The delegate of USA makes a speech against the clause, pointing out the extreme nature of it.


The delegate of France makes a point of information, trying to counter the delegate of USA’s arguments, then motions to follow up, and then motions to follow up again.

Chair Maria Mandritis and Andreas Economides: ‘Denied.’

The delegate of France calls for a P 5 caucus, and the five Permanent members exit the room for a short meeting. The clause ends up passing, with 10 votes for and 4 abstentions (USA included).

Special Committee: Topic 1 Debate continues

12.03 p.m: The delegates come back from their break to play a game of electricity, the losing team of which gets to eat random jelly beans. The delegate of Russia is delighted to have gotten a blueberry-flavored one, but others are not so lucky.

20180210_120223 20180210_120355

12.08 p.m: The debate continues with a speech by the delegate of the UK, defending her clause suggesting measures dealing specifically with trafficking and the victims of it, such as providing free legal advice and psychological support. Japan makes a point of information, asking what the specific legal advice would be, and China and the United Arab Emirates follow. The delegate of Switzerland takes the stage to support the clause, before the delegate of the United Arab Emirates makes a speech to oppose it, stating that the measures proposed are too vague and do not go far enough to protect victims.

12.23 p.m: The delegate of China also makes a speech against the clause, further highlighting the vague nature of the clause, as well as claiming that the priority should be for the prevention of trafficking and the tackling of the issue at its roots. The clause does not pass, with a majority vote against.

Special Committee: Day 2 Begins

9:30 a.m: The Special Committee is visited by Dr Carsten Lederer, who makes an informative presentation on the application of genome editing on Thalassaemia and Sickle Cell Disease, as well as some of the Bioethics issues that concern us today, such as the possibility of genome editing being applied for cosmetics.

11:16 a.m: After a warm round of applause for Dr Lederer, debating resumes on the topic of organ transplants with a clause by Russia proposing strict regulations on hospitals performing transplants. The clause is supported in a speech by France, and an amendment is proposed, after which the delegate of Russia is randomly picked out by the Chairs to make a speech either supporting or opposing it. The amendment encourages background checks on patients in countries operating on waiting lists, and the delegate makes a speech supporting it, followed by a speech by the delegate of Egypt, the actual submitter of the amendment.


The delegate of Germany also makes a speech for the amendment, and the amendment passes with a majority of 8 to 5. The clause passes with an overwhelming majority.

Special Committee: Final Debate of the Day

17.40 p.m: The debate on the final clause of the day begins, on a clause by France once again. The clause encourages all countries to adopt an opt out policy, by which everyone is assumed to be a donor unless they request otherwise. The delegate of Saudi Arabia raises concern over the possibility of parents pressuring children into giving their organs and the delegate of the USA views the clause as overly optimistic, as although many countries view the policy as beneficial and still do not undertake it.

The delegate of Egypt proposes an amendment, an additional sub-clause stating that the organs will need to be tested before being given for donation.


The delegate of France makes a speech supporting the amendment, and the voting procedure begins. The amendment passes unanimously, and so does the clause, with 13 votes for and 1 abstention. The delegates are free to go for the day after a final warning from the chairs, and the debate will continue tomorrow.

Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘Any trash brought in by buy you will be taken out by you.’

Chair Andreas Economides: ‘Sassy.’


Special Committee: Debate on Topic 1 clauses begins!

17.03 p.m: Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘The fun part begins!’ The debate on clauses begins with France’s clause suggesting holding of seminars by the United Nations in an attempt to educate the people over organ transplants and trafficking.


The delegate of Russia and Switzerland raise points of information, inquiring about the way the seminars would be enforced. Saudi Arabia and China also make points of information, and the delegate of Egypt takes the podium to make a speech against the clause, pointing out that the clause does not name specific groups of the population that the seminars would target, and thus would be impractical to enforce. The delegates of France and Germany makes points of information, and the delegate of France ends up insulting the delegate of Egypt.

Delegate of France to delegate of Egypt: ‘No wonder your government has such a problem with organ trafficking.’

17.24 p.m: More points of information are raised by Russia and Japan, asking the delegate to expand on his opposition to the clause, and an amendment is proposed by Germany and China adding a sub-clause which proposes the inclusion of relevant speakers in the seminars.

During a short break for the chairs to type up the amendment, the delegate of Egypt proposes a war on the Security Council of the Conference for stealing the Committee’s room, a proposal which is supported by every delegate in the room. The chairs agree to write a letter to the Security Council, and the delegates can expect a reply tomorrow.

Chair Andreas Economides: ‘What are we doing?’

Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘How did we start a war?’

Chair Andreas Economides: ‘How should I know?’

17.33 p.m: The debate on the amendment resumes, and the delegate of France inquires over how the education of such a sensitive matter will be given to children. The delegate of China also makes a speech supporting the amendment, emphasizing the importance of educating the youth. The amendment passes unanimously, and the clause passes as well, despite 3 votes against.


Special Committee: Debate on Pre-ambs ends!

16.42 p.m: The delegate of United Arab Emirates defends her clause, regarding statistics of the World Health Organisation on criminal activity, and it passes unanimously. The pre-amb by the delegate of Russia defining organ donations and the pre-amb by Singapore stating that every year 1 million people are in need of transplants similarly pass.


16.47 p.m: Australia’s pre-amb saying that a donor can save up to 8 lives and Brazil’s pre-amb approving of the World Health Organisation’s efforts on guidelines regarding organ transplants pass as well, without clapping as the chairs try to move the debate along. On France’s pre-amb raising awareness of the increasing cases of organ harvesting especially in LEDCs, an amendment is proposed by the delegate of Egypt, replacing with the term LEDCs with developing countries. The delegate of France makes a speech opposing the amendment, but votes for it anyway, and the amendment passes unanimously, as does the pre-amb. The final pre-amb by Russia, approving that multiple countries have a system through which all people are presumed to be organ donors unless they sign otherwise, passes as well,

Special Committee: The Debate Begins After A Press Conference with WHO

16.20 p.m: After hours of lobbying, the delegates are ready to begin debating on their clauses. Before that can begin, the  representative of the World Health Organisation takes the stage to raise awareness of the efforts of the organisation regarding the first topic: the future of organ transplants and to urge the delegates to take action. The delegates become reporters temporarily, asking questions to the WHO representative, regarding the actions taken by the WHO over the issue, and the delay of actions against criminal organisations that traffic organs.


16.32 p.m: The first clause by Saudi Arabia raising concern over criminal activities regarding organ transplants passes unanimously, while the clause by Egypt showing worry over the effect of religion on medical practices does not, with a majority vote against.

Special Committee: Lobbying for topic 3

15.16 p.m: The delegates are asked to move on to the lobbying of operative clauses for topic 3, human mechanics, while the chairs announce that due to the excessive amount of pre-ambulatory clauses submitted, they will be cutting them down to save time. Some delegates are discussing the possible benefits and dangers of advanced prosthetics while the chairs check the submitted clauses.


Special Committee – Punishment for Latecomers

14.37 p.m: The Special Committee meets again after lunch break, and the latecomers are punished, forced to butt-spell the names of their fellow delegates. While waiting for the latest of them all, the delegate of the UK, the other delegates get back to discussing their resolutions.

14.43 p.m: The delegate of the UK arrives and the other delegates decide her punishment. She has to butt-spell ‘United Kingdom’ to the rhythm of ‘Anaconda’. The delegates notice an observer in the next room. ‘It’s my teacher!’ exclaims the delegate of the UK, frustrated. Following the small break, the delegates continue lobbying.


Special Committee: Lobbying continues

10:05 a.m: While lobbying continues in the Special Committee, Chair Maria Mandritis warns the 5 Permanent Members, who have the power to veto clauses.

If you veto too many clauses you may have a war. If you have a war… well, I’ll be entertained, you may not be.


10:24 a.m: The delegates are encouraged to mix up their groups and move with everyone in the room.

Chair Maria Mandritis: ‘If you stick to this group I will physically move you.’

Two minutes later, she does, gently pushing the members of one group in different directions.

The Special Committee Begins!

9:25 a.m: The Special Committee officially assembles, and the chairs get to work, reminding the delegates of the procedures of debating.

Chair Andreas Economides: ‘Remember not to insult anyone. We don’t want any drama. OK, not too much drama.’

9:34 a.m: The delegates get up to introduce themselves to each other and begin discussing their clauses. Alliances are formed, with the delegates splitting into groups and starting to work.


El Baltiburn?!

5:50 pm Turns out El Chapo has a stunt double and  was taken to China and was working with Blackburn and Baltimore, being tested on and helping with research to find a cure to the Siwang virus.

The Siwang virus has finally been cured!