By Hilary Tam
After some hushed last minute bloc meetings (and an impromptu game of brawl stars), the Arab League resumed amendment debate on a final resolution concerning the Arab Spring’s aftermath.
The Arab Spring, a series of uprisings that first erupted in Tunisia then swept across the Arab World, created radical changes to governance and power structures in the region: delegates gathered to conclude discussion on how to best create stability there. Ultimately, after a round of exciting debate about whether the UN is partial enough to act as a mediator, the resolution passed, supported by most countries in the League.
Debate then commenced on the second topic of the council: how to reduce conflict in the Persian Gulf, a location with a bountiful supply of oil resources and of geopolitical importance.
Following the delegates’ lively opening speeches (Somalia: “WE HAVE TO USE THE MILITARY, GUYS!”), the council moved into GSL procedure. Countries such as Yemen, Qatar and Bahrain noted the importance of establishing security frameworks, and to enforce dialogue and maritime cooperation between all Arab countries via, for example, annual meetings and sanctions on belligerent states; countries including Jordan placed focus on their suffering in the crossfire of the Iran-Saudi Arabian proxy conflict, asking the two countries to negotiate and help reduce regional tensions. The enthusiasm of delegates became more infectious by the minute: after Egypt’s GSL speech, some could be seen visibly shaking with anticipation with their placards raised high up in the air.
As more speeches were made, a major clash became increasingly clear: is militarization in the Persian Gulf the answer to protecting the security of states? Sudan believed that regional legislation regarding the extent of militarization should be pursued, and cited the complex, polarizing nature of the Sunni-Shia divide, in addition to political tensions, as a reason to avoid armed confrontation; on the other hand, Somalia declared militarization in the gulf as the only viable solution in the short term until negotiations between warring states succeeded (and, on a lighter note, that Arab nations should just “hug it out”). This was echoed by Eritrea, who pointed out that the large number of wars in the region would take months, if not several years, to resolve, allowing superpowers like the US and China to dominate the gulf and its resources: the delegate proposed, then, that the Arab League should establish its own military body to keep peace in the region. Countries also disputed over whether foreign intervention in the gulf would be beneficial in mediating middle eastern disagreements, or if this would only increase dependency on superpower nations and create more proxy conflicts.
In light of these proposals, the council moved into an unmoderated caucus, quickly splitting itself into two blocs to write two different resolutions. The first to be debated, led by the delegation of Oman, called for collective security in the form of a new army in the Arab League dubbed (to the council’s delight) as “PEMIS”, as well as to diversify the economies of Arab nations via building oil reserves and reducing trade barriers. Debate then adjourned for lunch.
Did you maintain eye contact?
Omg babe you're so hot
No mention of that fire against speech which started with "what the actual sigma" and used integration by parts as an analogy for an approach to collective security? 😢