By Gianna Kwok
Upon entrance of the council room, only occasional mutters and typings could be heard. Delegates were huddled in groups, hurriedly polishing their resolutions. Despite the tense atmosphere, whispers of who would win the F1 Austria Grand Prix this weekend were heard, and Lando Norris seemed to be a hit amongst the council members of UNODC.
Without further ado, Bloc 1 launched into fierce resolution debate. Issues of complete removal of corruption in governments, infringement of sovereignty and consideration of LEDCs were discussed thoroughly, and a unique proposal in particular was a two-step mechanism in verifying whether funding from countries was used in countries to implement anti-money laundering (AML) policies and ensuring if non-compliance is due to corruption.
In particular, both resolutions featured a multinational organization, with aims to disseminate information regarding corruption. However, the issue of impeding sovereignty was raised multiple times throughout debate. How would countries with dysfunctional governments be able to work together? How would countries be able to comply with the organization's activities despite the various regulations specific to each country? And most importantly, how would governments that are possibly corrupt, be verified to cooperate in these organizations?
However, the intense debate was cut off by a reel making session, in which a delegate vehemently motioned for lunch extension but to no avail under the discretion of the chairs. Nevertheless, the opposing bloc continued to raise arguments regarding the implausible clause regarding termination of firms violating AML laws, which would possibly discourage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or start-ups, and increase their barriers of entry to the market.
After a brief break, the council moved on to debating Bloc 2’s resolution. Bloc 2 also suggested similar solutions of establishing anti-corruption operations. However, a standout clause was education and advocacy. With the argument of misallocation of resources, the opposing bloc made the case that such long-term strategies would be insufficient to curb money laundering and terrorist financing, and that these effects would only show after long periods of time.
Delegates exercised diplomacy and attempted to compromise by integrating similar solutions from both resolutions, hoping to reach a peaceful consensus, and tried to settle on a unified series of regulations. After evaluating the efficacy, plausibility, and efficiency of all short term and long term solutions provided, delegates were able to enhance the quality of the opposition’s resolution, providing new perspectives on the situation.
Comments