Who lives and who dies
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.
Deja una respuesta.