Wednesday, 9 March 2022
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
Xiana Lence Vilaboa
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
Xiana Lence Vilaboa
ARE WE DOING ENOUGH TO SOLVE IT?
The first day on the United Nations Development Programme Committee has been full of
emotions. Thanks to an amazing chair’swork, and an exceptional staff, the delegates were
welcomed in the warmest possible way.
Most of them described their mood as a mix of excitement and nervousness, nearly frisson,
pretty normal emotions if we point out the fact that most of them are on their first MUN and
also not in their birth place; some of them come form other cities as Barcelona or Toledo.
In the morning, the committee delegates have had the honor to meet vice-rector of the
URJC University and the 3rd edition’s general director. And they also had the visit of Virginia
Álvarez, Head of the area of Human Rights research and justice & home affairs at Amnesty
International Spain, who gave us all an extraordinary talk about the horror of human
trafficking.
The formal session was open at 11:55 a.m. and the agenda was set on the topic A, “Fourth
world: poverty in developed countries”, in which the delegations centered their efforts on
making the point on the importance of a basic economic resource for the proper
development of the society.
The message was clear: “poverty comes hand in hand with discrimination”, as Cuba said on
her opening speech; with that statement came a clear question, “Are we doing enough to
solve it?”, as was pointed out by Germany delegate.
Despite the relevance of the topic, and the importance to reach a resolution to fight the
poverty in developed countries, the historical division between European Countries and
Non-European countries appeared in the roll call, and it was present throughout the debate.
Although those differences, many delegations suggested education projects as possible
solutions to the problem, also remarking the relevance of real financial measures.
As the discussion progressed, the Russian delegation stated that “the European way of
education is just another way of indoctrinating the people”, to which the European powers
involved responded with ironic applause and shakes of their head.
Right after Russian delegation, direct attacks began between the French and Russian
delegations, focusing on the current critical situation in Ukraine, and increasingly moving the
conversation away from the main topic.
The topic was retrieved by Singapore, Belgium, Colombia and Argentina delegates on a
round of speeches. Thus, new sub-themes were born, translated into caucuses as the
Norwegian proposal to add to the agenda the importance of supporting local businesses, or
the Ukrainian delegation's speech on the importance of focusing UNDP forces on all kinds of
poverty crises around of the world, and also asked not to use current conflict situations to
confront positions in what should be a united international community.
As a summary of the first two sessions, it is noteworthy the strong gap that separates the
countries who, although providing potential solutions, have not focused on reaching an
agreement, but on defending their own positions without openly exploring any other’s;
admittedly, as the second sessions was reaching its end, the delegations started to work
more actively in projects, especially France delegation with their proffers. Last but not least,
we should note the critical gossip situation that was experienced yesterday in the
committee. Citizens expect a change, both in the evolution of the debate and in the gossip's
crisis, which was luckily fixed last minute.
emotions. Thanks to an amazing chair’swork, and an exceptional staff, the delegates were
welcomed in the warmest possible way.
Most of them described their mood as a mix of excitement and nervousness, nearly frisson,
pretty normal emotions if we point out the fact that most of them are on their first MUN and
also not in their birth place; some of them come form other cities as Barcelona or Toledo.
In the morning, the committee delegates have had the honor to meet vice-rector of the
URJC University and the 3rd edition’s general director. And they also had the visit of Virginia
Álvarez, Head of the area of Human Rights research and justice & home affairs at Amnesty
International Spain, who gave us all an extraordinary talk about the horror of human
trafficking.
The formal session was open at 11:55 a.m. and the agenda was set on the topic A, “Fourth
world: poverty in developed countries”, in which the delegations centered their efforts on
making the point on the importance of a basic economic resource for the proper
development of the society.
The message was clear: “poverty comes hand in hand with discrimination”, as Cuba said on
her opening speech; with that statement came a clear question, “Are we doing enough to
solve it?”, as was pointed out by Germany delegate.
Despite the relevance of the topic, and the importance to reach a resolution to fight the
poverty in developed countries, the historical division between European Countries and
Non-European countries appeared in the roll call, and it was present throughout the debate.
Although those differences, many delegations suggested education projects as possible
solutions to the problem, also remarking the relevance of real financial measures.
As the discussion progressed, the Russian delegation stated that “the European way of
education is just another way of indoctrinating the people”, to which the European powers
involved responded with ironic applause and shakes of their head.
Right after Russian delegation, direct attacks began between the French and Russian
delegations, focusing on the current critical situation in Ukraine, and increasingly moving the
conversation away from the main topic.
The topic was retrieved by Singapore, Belgium, Colombia and Argentina delegates on a
round of speeches. Thus, new sub-themes were born, translated into caucuses as the
Norwegian proposal to add to the agenda the importance of supporting local businesses, or
the Ukrainian delegation's speech on the importance of focusing UNDP forces on all kinds of
poverty crises around of the world, and also asked not to use current conflict situations to
confront positions in what should be a united international community.
As a summary of the first two sessions, it is noteworthy the strong gap that separates the
countries who, although providing potential solutions, have not focused on reaching an
agreement, but on defending their own positions without openly exploring any other’s;
admittedly, as the second sessions was reaching its end, the delegations started to work
more actively in projects, especially France delegation with their proffers. Last but not least,
we should note the critical gossip situation that was experienced yesterday in the
committee. Citizens expect a change, both in the evolution of the debate and in the gossip's
crisis, which was luckily fixed last minute.
Thursday, 10 March 2022
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
Xiana Lence Vilaboa
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
Xiana Lence Vilaboa
ARE WE WORKING AS SOVEREIGN NATIONS OR AS A INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The second day’s formal session started in UNDP at 10:30 a.m., with Norway, Hellenic
Republic and Russian Federation proposing real solutions to the problem of poverty on
developing countries, leaving behind the differences that were present during the first day.
That how a tour de table was initiated with no votes against it, and the countries started to
expose their own ideas, including as well some criticism or flattering other potitics. Also,
retrievals were born by the conflict in Ukraine and Russian affirmation about European's
dependence on Russian gas. Despite those differences, countries as France Republic or the
Kingdom of Morocco presented possible plans for the objective of the committee, going
back to the relevance of educational, economic and energetic independence projects.
As India's delegation said, poverty eradication is goal number one in the UN sustainable
development goals; that was when the delegates got a substantial change: they started
working together, even getting to see a floating wink between the French and Russian
delegate.
As an innovation on the debate, delegates began a discussion about the need to
implement labour conditions in the international atmosphere, by doing it into the national
projects scope but also taking international measures that, times goes by, could become as
part of international law; despite the fact that those could be noteworthy initiatives many
delegations thought those plans invade their own sovereignty.
Having in mind all ideas shared to that point, delegates went ahead with the working
paper’s arrangements. Negotiations consolidated two strong factions: one of them was
managed by Ukraine and the other one by Kingdom of Norway; their delegates had an
interview with the press team, with the purpose to help the civilians understand the different
between the two posible resolution projects.
Due to the contrast that was shown during the following caucuses, about the social
integration of minorities, it was especially hard to reach a common way out of the situation
that was created because of the definition of two blocks.
Nonetheless, and even with in the arduous circumstances of the debate in UNDP, the talk
progressed properly onto next topics. Finally, the writing of resolution’s projects commenced
at 3:30 p.m., still in the discussion of which “team” some delegations were part of, as ther
seemed there were no consistend positions.
What society wants to know is, are our representatives doing as well as they should? As
sovereign nations, yes, each delegation is doing their bests in favour of their country's
interests; but as an institution which look forward to international development, obviously
they can do much better; they expose extraordinary ideas, ideas that are useful if they can
not just agree on favourable measures for all citizens. At the end of the day all the member
States of the committee need to approve a resolution to stand up such a serious problem.
Republic and Russian Federation proposing real solutions to the problem of poverty on
developing countries, leaving behind the differences that were present during the first day.
That how a tour de table was initiated with no votes against it, and the countries started to
expose their own ideas, including as well some criticism or flattering other potitics. Also,
retrievals were born by the conflict in Ukraine and Russian affirmation about European's
dependence on Russian gas. Despite those differences, countries as France Republic or the
Kingdom of Morocco presented possible plans for the objective of the committee, going
back to the relevance of educational, economic and energetic independence projects.
As India's delegation said, poverty eradication is goal number one in the UN sustainable
development goals; that was when the delegates got a substantial change: they started
working together, even getting to see a floating wink between the French and Russian
delegate.
As an innovation on the debate, delegates began a discussion about the need to
implement labour conditions in the international atmosphere, by doing it into the national
projects scope but also taking international measures that, times goes by, could become as
part of international law; despite the fact that those could be noteworthy initiatives many
delegations thought those plans invade their own sovereignty.
Having in mind all ideas shared to that point, delegates went ahead with the working
paper’s arrangements. Negotiations consolidated two strong factions: one of them was
managed by Ukraine and the other one by Kingdom of Norway; their delegates had an
interview with the press team, with the purpose to help the civilians understand the different
between the two posible resolution projects.
Due to the contrast that was shown during the following caucuses, about the social
integration of minorities, it was especially hard to reach a common way out of the situation
that was created because of the definition of two blocks.
Nonetheless, and even with in the arduous circumstances of the debate in UNDP, the talk
progressed properly onto next topics. Finally, the writing of resolution’s projects commenced
at 3:30 p.m., still in the discussion of which “team” some delegations were part of, as ther
seemed there were no consistend positions.
What society wants to know is, are our representatives doing as well as they should? As
sovereign nations, yes, each delegation is doing their bests in favour of their country's
interests; but as an institution which look forward to international development, obviously
they can do much better; they expose extraordinary ideas, ideas that are useful if they can
not just agree on favourable measures for all citizens. At the end of the day all the member
States of the committee need to approve a resolution to stand up such a serious problem.
Friday, 11 March 2022
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
Xiana Lence Vilaboa
OUR COMMON ENEMY IS POVERTY
Nervousness and excitement, the initial emotions coming hand in hand with delagates on
the first day, were also there on the last one.
Thursday’s sessions ended with an internal division between the delegations. With two
possible resolutions ready to share, on one side there were some delegates willing
topresent both independently and, on the other side, some delegates preferred to merge
them. Also, some delegations were not keen on liaising with their international “opposites”.
On Friday, after a long-awaited launch of the team photo, the delegates showed the
output of their resolutions, which began right after the coffee break. That was when the
committee finally focused on the union of forces, bridging the gap among positions by
focusing their attention on the approval of amendments.
After presenting their projects, the amendments started to be introduced. It was at that
point when the Russian Federation presented their key strategy, getting to introduce an
amendment about Ukraine crisis current situation, which was unexpectedly accepted by the
members of the committee. In fact, the Russian delegate managed to add the clause that
justified the invasion of their bordering country.
As soon as the informal sessions began, UNDP’s awards were bestowed. Russian
Federation won the award of best delegation, and the award to the best delegate was given
to Ukraine. As well, two honorable mentions were conferred, to the United Kingdom and
Argentina delegations.
But the real purpose of the URJC model of the United Nations are not the awards. Not
even the debate, although it is obviously one of the reasons why the model exists; it is not to
give the opportunity to learn how to debate defending country values. The real objective of
the project is, without doubt, friends and moments that delegates will treasure for lif . That is
why punishments, which include dancingor singing challenges, are one of the greatest gifts
that MUN gave us all.
Reaching the end of the last day, an informal award, which was elected by the delegates,
was given to countries like India, French Republic, or Cuba. It is also worth pointing out the
award for “the phantom delegations”, which was given to Italy, delegation which stood out by
their non-presence.
the first day, were also there on the last one.
Thursday’s sessions ended with an internal division between the delegations. With two
possible resolutions ready to share, on one side there were some delegates willing
topresent both independently and, on the other side, some delegates preferred to merge
them. Also, some delegations were not keen on liaising with their international “opposites”.
On Friday, after a long-awaited launch of the team photo, the delegates showed the
output of their resolutions, which began right after the coffee break. That was when the
committee finally focused on the union of forces, bridging the gap among positions by
focusing their attention on the approval of amendments.
After presenting their projects, the amendments started to be introduced. It was at that
point when the Russian Federation presented their key strategy, getting to introduce an
amendment about Ukraine crisis current situation, which was unexpectedly accepted by the
members of the committee. In fact, the Russian delegate managed to add the clause that
justified the invasion of their bordering country.
As soon as the informal sessions began, UNDP’s awards were bestowed. Russian
Federation won the award of best delegation, and the award to the best delegate was given
to Ukraine. As well, two honorable mentions were conferred, to the United Kingdom and
Argentina delegations.
But the real purpose of the URJC model of the United Nations are not the awards. Not
even the debate, although it is obviously one of the reasons why the model exists; it is not to
give the opportunity to learn how to debate defending country values. The real objective of
the project is, without doubt, friends and moments that delegates will treasure for lif . That is
why punishments, which include dancingor singing challenges, are one of the greatest gifts
that MUN gave us all.
Reaching the end of the last day, an informal award, which was elected by the delegates,
was given to countries like India, French Republic, or Cuba. It is also worth pointing out the
award for “the phantom delegations”, which was given to Italy, delegation which stood out by
their non-presence.
