Day 3 : Committee Sessions

1. ICJ ( by Eliza Niculescu )

    As the third day of LazărMUN rolled by, it was time for the third phase of the process in the ICJ committee: the witnesses’ one. There were 4 witnesses in total, 2 for each side of the conflict.

    The first one was a 29-year old woman from Ukraine, played by Daria Goldenberg. She had been a journalist for a Ukrainian broadcast, but after the Russian regime occupied the area, she remained unemployed. Her brother in law had been taken to prison after a protest, and she claims hundreds of Ukrainian men have been taken away in Russian buses, only to never be seen again. She also declared she was denied services (such as healthcare) because of her nationality.

    Russia’s attorneys did not seem happy with her claims, declaring that some are simple speculations, not concrete evidence. The next witness, this time for the Russian side, was played by Tedor Grama (a Tatar from Uzbekistan who lives in Crimea). The discrimination was so bad, he had gotten spit and shouted at in the streets; when he searched for a job, no Ukrainian shop accepted him; furthermore. Ukraine refused to listen to the Tatar’s wishes, but when the Russian regime took over, they finally regained their rights.

    Ukraine’s third witness was none other than Matei Udroiu in the role of Ivan, a 32-year old man who is an accountant at a dairy farm. He lived in the Donetsk People’s Republic, but fled to Kiev with the help of a friend from Lukoil. When he was still working, higher-ups had him relocate the farm’s funds to buy weaponry.  The witness also admitted that Russian officers always sought to intimidate Ukrainian people on the street, often asking for money or cigarettes. His brother was also murdered by Russians.

    The last witness was Ivan Ivanovici, a 55-year old man from Luhansk people’s Republic, who was played by Renée Tudor, one of the Security Council’s chairs. He declared that Ukraine’s government doesn’t listen to their people’s wishes, but still demands a lot from them. The elderly and disabled have not received pensions in the last 6 years, and the situation only got worse with time. In the end, the judges deemed his testimony to be irrelevant and thus, it did not influence the verdict.

    After all of the witnesses had spoken, it was time for the speeches about their testimonies. Advocate Pantiu did not consider them a good basis for any accusation, since they did not provide objective perspectives; judge Lazar also revealed that he thought all of the declarations were quite emotional. Judge Bunda concluded his speech by stating that both Ukrainian and Russian governments had to collaborate to obtain the best results. Afterwards, both delegations presented their closing statements. Ukraine put emphasis on their evidence, claiming it was more than enough to prove Russia’s support for terrorist groups.

    The verdict came at last, of course, and was presented during the General Assembly. Russia was found innocent when it came to the topic of funding terrorism, but guilty of racial discrimination. To sum it up, after all of their hard work and debates, both sides had their sweet moment of victory  –  and what else could be better?

2. ECOFIN ( by Maria Grigorescu )

    As today was the last committee session, the delegates had to reach for an agreement on the last topic: the Merits of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). All the countries agreed that semi-automation is the most effective alternative for countries that do not have the budget required for a fully automated system.

    Of course, our beloved chairs did not forget about the punishments! Australia, China, North Korea and Kiribati had to recite the lyrics of a popular Romanian song, while Germany and Japan had to declare their love for each other using words suggested by the chairs. These hilarious moments unveiled a hidden talent of the delegate of Germany: poetry, as one of his fellow delegates confessed.

    Minimizing the disadvantages of FDI was one of the most important points tackled today, as it implied topics like “modern colonialism”. Germany suggested that attracting quality FDI is the first step into making sure there is no modern colonialism in any country. The solution proposed by Russia was creating a legal framework that should stop the abusive ways of the investors. In the end, however, everybody agreed that the best method of preventing modern colonialism is to diversify both the investors and the beneficiaries.

    The last day of LazărMUN ended with the funny awards and with a round of applause that left us all with tired, yet sincere smiles on our faces. As a first timer, I can tell you that this is the experience that truly helps you develop into the best version of yourself, as I’ve been told at the Opening Ceremony.

3. DISEC ( by Sandra Tănăsescu )

    The last day of LazărMUN2020 was received by the delegates with high expectations and anticipation. To start the day, a motion for discussing solutions was proposed, as well as a Tour de Table, in order to gain a better understanding of each country’s position regarding the introduction of a Weapon of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East. The rest of the day was dedicated to creating and discussing a resolution that would satisfy both blocks. After several discussions and voting sessions, during which certain amendments were made, the resolution submitted by the delegation of the United Kingdom was voted and passed (luckily, the resolution also passed in the General Assembly later the next day). The tension was almost tangible during this part of the committee session, but thankfully, the chairs entertained some “punishments” to help loosen up- in a rather remarkable and heart-warming manner, while also maintaining the theme of the committee.

    The day finished with a round of Funny Awards and the tradition of signing each other’s placards as the anticipation grew stronger for the social put together by the organizing team.

4. SOCHUM ( by Andreea Voica )

    The last day of debates in the SOCHUM committee set off with the continuation of the resolutions on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The delegates discussed the two standing resolutions proposed by each bloc, suggesting different amendments in order to vote the final versions. After many contradictory speeches, a conclusion was reached and the resolution submitted by The People’s Republic of China passed.

    Feeling the need for a little break, the delegates delighted themselves with a short session of gossip before approaching the second topic of the committee — Women’s Reproductive Rights. Considering the extensive nature of this subject, setting the agenda was the first thing coming at hand. Briefly, the members of the SOCHUM committee mentioned the most striking issues that are associated with this topic: the legalization of abortion, contraceptive methods, child marriage, maternal mortality and the introduction of an educational program regarding reproductive health.  The delegates clearly stated their views on the matter while delivering their opening speeches. Even if states like France and the Russian Federation pledged for open-mindedness, the overwhelming majority chose to remain devoted to traditions and religious beliefs. The delegate of the Amnesty International beautifully expressed her support for the cause of modernization by affirming that  ”No woman could call herself free without having control over her body”. Afterwards, several motions were voted in the house, giving the delegates the opportunity to debate specific subtopics in detail.

    Even though an agreement regarding abortion was impossible to be reached—mainly because of the existent cultural differences — it was felt that all the present states were deeply concerned about the reproductive health of women, as women’s rights are humans’ rights too. Moreover, it was acknowledged that maternal mortality still represents an issue in developing countries as statistics have shown. (The highest maternal mortality ratio is registered in Africa: 546 per 100,000 live births.)

    The last day in Lazăr MUN’s 2020 SOCHUM committee was slowly coming to an end as the chairpersons warmly congratulated everyone for their involvement and the room was shaken by a loud round of applauses. With that being said, dreaming with our eyes wide-open is the only thing left to do until next year’s edition of LazărMUN. May the MUN post sadness leave you shortly and see you soon!

5. UNSC ( by Silviu Craiovan )

    There is no doubt that the general subject is full of tangles and very subjective manners, although failing to come up with a conclusive answer the previous day put the delegates in a bit of a time crunch in the current debates. The Committee today began by Iran, together with its supporter of India, requesting the other delegates to reconsider their positions. The situation is obviously split between two sides, as the Russian delegate said – “us against them”. So, to overhaul this discrepancy between views of the conflict, a new motion was put into discussion: “Who should take the first step in solving the problem?”. The opinions were, again, divided. Iran maintained their point of view in which they have already found an answer, the Hormuz Peace Endeavour. Their ally, Russia, mentioned that they “want equal cooperation between the member states”.

    Following, a Q&A Session with the United States took place, containing some controversial declarations by the respective delegate, such as ‘It is irrelevant if it’s illegal or not’ and ‘our people dying are above International Law’ as a response to Iran saying that intervention of foreign ships in national waters would be above the law. Other representatives critiqued these statements, for example India which pledged that ‘the US military is brutal’, their aggressiveness causing great economic damages to the Republic of India, claiming to be ‘the most affected country’.  Then came another Q&A, with Israel this time. The American speeches were somewhat clarified, although the opposing countries still maintained their opinions. Succeeding was a series of unmoderated caucuses in which the delegates formed their resolutions. After composing them, delegates had the opportunity to support or to combat the arguments presented. The Working Paper submitted by the USA adopted the fruitful trade through the strait as the main point, proposing the Operation Sentinel as a mean to achieve it by stationing UN troops in Omani territory to oversee the chokepoint. The Russian proposed Paper condemned the presence of the US-led coalition in the Strait of Hormuz, requested the retreat of foreign military troops in a period of 6 months, urging the lifting of the imposed sanctions. In the end, no resolution was accepted – the first one was vetoed by Russia and France and the second by the USA.

Lasă un răspuns

Adresa ta de email nu va fi publicată. Câmpurile obligatorii sunt marcate cu *