The differences between the great powers and the small ones allowed to see how, despite an apparent agreement, money and power could be of any peaceful objective.
The attacks did not stop jumping in the room, more than any kind of dialogue, where highlight phrases like: "You want to send people to the death" as indicated South Korea or "Think before shoot" as indicated Pakistan.
The session moved forward, reaching a common goal, alleging the idea that kazahktan expounded about what future what we want and what would happend next.
The question that everyone asked in this committee was: For what we come here?.
Continue the war seemed to be the summary that everyone thought but that none dared to admit.
At the end of the committee we could see how everyone was anxious to end any kind of disagreement but the interests were no longer economic, military or relevant to the issue in question, were personal based on the fatigue they all had after the hard week (and the night parties).
The days are passing and the delegates begin to be more tired and with this, the tensions begin to emerge from the beginning of the session.
The moderate caucus and the working papers marked what the session was going to consist of. The intention of powers such as China, Russia, the USA and South Africa establish a definitive agreement based on the recognition of the issues of the Middle East countries being the first step to achieve security and peace for all.
Iran focused on what position Israel would adopt in the resolution when it was supplied with weapons by the US, as Russia and China supported the presence of nuclear weapons in Turkey.
Kazakhstan proposed a project based on the withdrawal of countries like Russia and US to ensure the safety of the rest as well as they wanted to get the weapons to stop being in wrong hands.
Iran and Kazakhstan want to improve the agreement, but given the refusal of those who proposed it, they decide to settle against North Korea and Pakistan.
Topic 2 was considered finished upon reaching a "seeming" agreement.
The issue to be dealt with now would be Regulation of the use of lethal autonomous weapons and its compatibility with International Humanitarian Law.
The legality of arms was questioned, so the session would focus on claiming that what is law for each country.
At the same time, it was questioned if it is safe the use of weapons without the human control. Iran was throwing a controversial question asking what arises first, the lethal weapon and then the way to use it or the thought of killing people and then the way of expressing it.
The debate focused on determining who was the one who decides if someone dies or lives questioning the capacity of robots without human control.
At the end of the session US avoided responding to accusations about Nagasaki and Hiroshima justifying the presence of nuclear weapons supporting the idea that the world is at war and there must be a need to defend what would be answered by countries like Iran, Pakistan and Syria with the phrase:”you pretend to defend yourself from a war that you have created”.
In short, it was possible to see that the countries were not in the task of reaching a solution, they presented their different opinions, as well as could see the economic interests behind any global agreement.
Although the session began with the US in the spotlight, as the aches and reproaches advanced, the model wobbled mainly motivated by the response of the US that threatened to use its nuclear weapons, encouraging the end of the model for being a diplomatic conflict as well as ending the existence of countries like Brazil or Iran.
Also it's worth say the disappearances of folders and with it the possible transmission of unauthorized information (what motivates the USA to be more irritable in the debate).
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia and the USA were the protagonists of this new convocation in which the attacks and infirmities predominated in front of possible agreements and resolutions of peace also joined the debate brazil being an essential part of today's resolution.
The topic to be discussed would focus on the disarment based on proportionality, being aware of an impossible withdrawal of weapons in the entire world but in a proportional reduction of it.
USA want to focus the issue on the necessity for armament against the power of Russia also claimined countries of the middle east that they should not have cause for complaint since they had not been attacked (yet).
Pakistan by allusions responded by referring what in the previous session US argued (the promotion and innovation of weapons) in the face of today's position based on cooperation and progressive reduction to find peace.
The debate began to be more tense when in the middle of the session the folder with all the relevant information for the USA disappeared.
Countries like the USA Russia and China wanted to get Israel to position and argue in favor of them, while Middle Eastern countries continued to refer to the issue that has brought them together in this debate as it is the end of a war and with it the end of the insecurities as South Africa held.
“The first step to achieve this is to start in the Middle East” a phrase that prompted discussion in the debate between powers like USA and Russia against Iran, which had supporters such as Arabia, who gave their voice for the first time in this new sesión:”this way is not the correct”.
The session tensed as the moment that US and Russia launched different threats to countries such as Iran or Brazil, being defenseless in the absence of nuclear weapons.
While they will seek dialogue with countries like Israel, a diplomatic conflict that threatened Brazil as well as the model and committee began with the phrase "remember that we have nuclear weapons and others do not."
With this phrase the model was put to an end with the delegates being aware of the consequences that this threat would have for subsequent sessions, leaving in the air a possible unstoppable conflict.
In conclusion, the debate continues without reaching any common agreement, since delegates are more interested in inciting conflict than in dialogue.
Being session 0, the conference was scheduled to be quiet but as the debate progressed this would not be as expected,the different delegates of the countries positioned themselves between accepting armament or renouncing it to achieve peace.
Among the main topics to be discussed are the Regulation of the use of autonomous lethal weapons and their compatibility with International Humanitarian Law, and Challenges towards nuclear disarmament: NTP and the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
The debate would begin by choosing the topic to be discussed where the US just as the UK intended it to be the first aspect already mentioned, while countries such as Pakistan or Syria reacted quickly to these intentions, refering to being an easy subject to avoid by the US.
After the vote, it was decided to discuss the second topic; Afghanistan opened the debate by remembering that she has no weapons against countries with certain power in the world such as the US, China ...(only 9 in entire world). By allusions US justify the presence of nuclear weapons with the idea that without it, insecurities are promoted by upholding what was said by trump two weeks ago about the nuclear capabilities of the country supported by China.
Countries such as Japan, Brazil, India support the idea of not participating in the promotion of nuclear weapons because they, their enviroment and their neightbors countries are affected.
``All countries sames rouls´´ would be justified by Pakistan who wanted to eliminate those weapons that affect all those who do not possess them.
Countries such as Iraq would defend the action of carrying out ``several actions´´to end the excessive power of some in front others, as many countries made reference to the lack of weapons in many of them in front of the excessive power of the great powers.
Faced with the idea of ending armament in the world, Iran responded to the United States with a new concept as ``nuclear technology for everybody´´ puzzling the room as it was not a message that would inspire peace, and as the debate progressed it contradicted asking for dialogue and cooperation towards peace between countries.
The themes transparency and peace were manifested in the committee with the phrase ``nuclear free world´´entering into controversy with the episode between Russia and the USA. whose confrontations affect the rest of countries as Italy argued, also highlights the conflict between USA and Iran where the latter was grateful to acknowledge that they were answered by the USA for a kiss to the Iranian delegate.
In conclusion, the different opinions of the different countries showed the possible alliances and discrepancies between those who promote nuclear weapons against those who seek to stop it to achieve peace, although in this session we saw how the great powers predominated in front of small countries as well as numerous Delegates did not make clear their position.