By Charmaine Cheng ||
Starting off with a wave of questions about subsubsub and subsubsubsub clauses (apparently Justin approved of subsubsub clauses), the Security Council commences debate over their first resolution submitted by the delegate of Iran that aims to ratify international treaties to deal with illicit arms trade.
The ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) establishes common global standards for the international trade in conventional weapons, and the first clause in the resolution strives to make the treaty applicable to all countries. Most countries in the council, including Iran and Egypt have not ratified the ATT. The delegate of UAE and Germany argued against the clause, stating that the ratification of the ATT would only create more loopholes, as countries can withdraw from the ATT if they wanted to (as the Security Council does not have binding power). Even so, the clause was proved to be effective as it finally passed with a majority.
Moving on to the second clause encouraging all countries to be under the jurisdiction of the ICJ and regulate weapon stockpiles, the delegate of the UK makes a passionate speech stating ‘this delegate doesn’t really care about the ICJ’ and ‘I just really like regulating stocks’. But sad news - the council passes a first ever friendly amendment to strike the UK’s most beloved clause, leaving the delegate in distress.
After this journalist ran to DISEC to see what the chaos was about for half an hour and then came back, she was surprised to see that the council was still amending the third clause. It aims for countries to collaborate to resolve underlying issues that relate to the arms trade. The debate slowly shifted to revolve around a subclause about social media which led to free Instagram marketing. (not sponsored) The delegate of Qatar made an against speech stating ‘how many people are dying in a prison has no relation to the crime rate’ and that the clause violates a country’s sovereignty. They were proven right as the clause was striked at a vote of 6:7.
Finally to the fourth clause about education, The delegate of Turkey stated passionately that ‘education will fill the void in your heart to prevent children from joining rebel groups’. Then, the delegate of Iraq made a ‘questionable speech’ (as phrased by Egypt in their POI) against education, arguing that teaching children about rebel groups won’t prevent them from joining these groups.
The resolution was proved effective when it was passed with an overwhelming majority. BUT sharp turn of events…France threatening to veto the resolution as a whole?? The council breathed a sigh of relief as they retracted their threat along with the delegate of Egypt stating that ‘this ignorance is why France can’t get anything done’.
The debate about the second resolution submitted by…France will continue after lunch, with his overtime speech and POI replies (one POI stating ‘what is your mom’) resulting in the chairs being forced to limit them to 30 seconds.
Comments