Chinese desperation driving UNSC session By SHRIJIT KUNDU

DISEC: Quibbling, questions, and more questions. By SIMRAN KIRPALANI

The possibility of Japanese and Indian Permanent member status in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) proved prickly from the start. A heated debated between UK and China, the latter strongly against Japan being granted Permanent member status in the environment further confirmed this. China was accused of “looking backward” by the American delegate after China justified their position based on Japanese World War II atrocities. With most countries for a Japanese permanent member status based on the conditions brought forward by UK’s working paper, the Chinese delegation resorted to eyebrow-raising measures, using the recent Fukushima disaster to debilitate Japan’s eligibility. The Chinese desperation elicited fears about voting for veto powers for the newly elected permanent UNSC member due to ironically, steering the session from a potential deadlock. Facing a possible Chinese veto, the American delegation suggested voting take place in the General assembly where all member states have equal power. However, this was opposed by countries like Columbia, who wanted important decisions to be made within the UNSC. This discussion revealed the inherent flaws in the UNSC operation, which was brought to light by insightful delegates. During an un-moderated caucus, the imminent Chinese veto threat seemed effective, softening India, a key Japanese ally. India shrewdly decided to pursue the permanent member position and veto powers separately instead, bypassing Sino-Japanese animosities. Nevertheless, this UNSC session looked promising as comprehensive resolutions were drafted by Brazil to mediate the issue. Despite reaffirming the importance of religious freedom, and condemning extremism, delegates were left uncertain and nit-picking over the definition of the key issue-religious extremism. Each country proposed a definition that seemed to differ from the next, resulting in a long, almost unnecessary debate. Another issue, whether religious extremism was linked to terrorism, emerged, essentially skirting the real issue at hand- solving religious extremism. Many felt that both were linked and had to be addressed together, while some felt addressing them separately would be more effective.

2

(cont’d from page 1)Some delegates felt that religious extremism was fuelled by socio-economic inequalities. The delegate of USA mentioned that USA had been attacked many times by “religious extremists” but concurrently expressed belief in religious freedom. Adding to the confusion, the delegate of USA then brought up some bits of his draft resolution that a puzzled Indonesian delegate unsuccessfully tried to clarify, as the Chair suspended the moderated caucus. Will countries ever make up their mind? Now, that’s another question. ECOSOC delegates shock with words (Or the lack thereof) By DYAN GO

Inter-Korea nuclear rivalry features in IAEA clean nuclear energy efforts By ACHAL RAYAKAR With the topic of ‘Nuclear Energy and Climate selected as the issue of debate, experienced and eager first-time International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delegates alike both took the floor, enunciating varying but equally strong stances on the issue. The delegate of Iran in particular stood out for eloquently enunciating his country’s position. The credibility of nuclear energy was an issue, with delegates continually discussing possible alternatives to this source but also agreeing that nuclear power put to a peaceful purpose could alleviate climate change in the short-run. The grave possibility of nuclear energy falling in the wrong hands was also an evident fear amongst on represented countries, like Sweden. However, the numerous moderated caucuses and sometimes repetitive points of information lulled the debate, which the Chair described as sometimes “off the point” and “recurrent”. Nonetheless the situation progressed as an alliance led by the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea emerged. Yet the spirit of cooperation was hardly reflected, as France took issue with the alliance, a potential Russo-Korean joint nuclear energy program seemed aimed at weakening the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s position in the Korean Peninsula.

After little debate, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) delegates came to a unanimous decision to debate on maternal and fetal healthcare. A period of awkward silence was broken by the delegate of Niger with her strong statement, “Prevention is better than cure.” Soon, debates on allocation and transparency of funds, began. Things heated up when the delegate of Norway during the un-moderated caucus, accused the delegate of USA of “push[ing] the delegate Niger away”. After a not-so-productive session, some delegates came back stronger in the next round. The feisty delegate of Korea minced no words, citing programs in India, where people are paid to get vasectomies and tubal ligations. She then questioned the

3

(Cont’d from page 2) American delegate’s point on “fund transparency”. More indiscrete moments ensued as the delegate of USA blatantly replied: “Countries need assurance that their funds are not going to some dictator in Africa, no offense Africa.” To add insult to the injury, he then commented that India was “… suffering from over-population”. An almost indecorous war of words, painfully silent delegates can best describe a not so pretty start to the ECOSOC committee sessions.

SM(ILE)UN: The lighter side of SMUN

By DYAN GO

OUR SPONSORS/PARTNERS:

NOTICE: We apologise for the factual and typographical errors in our article: “ Inter-Korea nuclear rivalry features in IAEA clean nuclear energy efforts”. It has been corrected.