PS MUN 2013

The newsletter

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR

People in the college MUN circuit often have immense respect for school delegates for one simple reason that can be summarized by one word: research. An extremely well researched delegate is clearly at an advantage over your run-of-the-mill delegate of India who tried to pass off India as a country that had abolished death penalty but uses it "once in a while in the rarest of the rare cases". But then again, seeing from the speech that the chief guest had delivered, the average Indian feels quite strongly about the death penalty--but that's what MUN is about, isn't it?

Putting yourself in the shoes of the citizen of a country who doesn't speak his mind, but speaks his country's foreign policymakers' mind is the biggest challenge of all, and research is one of the things that would help you fit those shoes better. And that's why school MUNs are charming to watch-because most of the students take the research part very seriously. Another thing about school MUNs is that Executive Boards are ready to forgive and forget, owing to the number of first-time MUNers, which makes it an interesting and invigorating debate--willing to bend a few rules so as to garner a few much-appreciated laughs and a few chances to bring a valuable point to the fore, complicated diplomacy etiquette notwithstanding.

PSMUN has been a refreshing change from the one year I've spent observing and participating in college MUNs. I am also a little envious of the students in Chennai in terms of the opportunities they receive to hone their speaking skills--practice that they would find extremely useful once they do get to college, I'm sure. I was also pleasantly surprised by the level of enthusiasm that my team of journalists had shown, and while their articles wouldn't exactly be professional pieces, most of them are first-timers, too, and I'm sure some of them would go on and either bow to the overwhelming pressure of becoming a delegate--or stay strong and remain doing one of the most thankless jobs that a person could have, remain a journalist of world press.

Do give the articles by them a careful perusal--it was worth my while editing them, it will surely be worth your time reading them, and who knows, it might teach you a thing or two about the council that you didn't know, yourself!

I wouldn't be giving them enough credit if I didn't mention a thing or two about the sharpness of the UNSC simulated today--just one thing though, I wouldn't want them to rest on their laurels!

Keep your placards raised, Arvind Badri.

CHAIRPERSON REVIVES DEAD DEBATE, HOPE REMAINS As inhabitants of a world in the 21st century, we find economic stability an imperative feature for the sustenance of global citizens. PS MUN 2013s EcoSoc council brought forth various issues concerning austerity measures and the EU debt crisis, being the primary agenda for the committee. The problem, though, with the delegates that had assembled, was that the solutions put forth were in no way relevant to the problems addressed. Brazil, which claimed that it wouldnt buy any bonds from Europe, questioned its very existence in the council; and Cyprus, that followed it, boldly claimed that the European economic crisis had almost no influence on his countryin the beginning, it seemed that most didnt understand why they were there. Then came the barrage of confusions where Cyprus made a series of contradicting statements, and enough was enough for a few delegates who found the proceedings quite boring, and some requested a motion to entertain for a sheer break from the monotony. At this point, the Chairperson stepped up, and decided that the rules paled in significance when compared to the advantages that would arise out of proper, coherent debateso, he decided that he would allow a few seemingly impossible points of order to points of order, and some other violations of conventional diplomacy. To the credit of the committee, though, this did turn out to improve the quality of the debate, and the delegates have finally started to boldly and ably tackle the real problem theyd come here forthe prospect of a possible economic meltdown, whose effects the delegate of India seemed to comically underestimate. Hope remains, though, that the delegates, now having found some direction, will go ahead to provide a solution to the economic crisis.

WHERE IS THIS COUNCIL GOING? The meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation began in an innocuous enough note, with an uneventful role call and things quickly got kick-started and delegates began speaking on the agenda, Islamaphobia. The council was unique in the sense that there were representatives of different bodies, and some countries (of questionable utility), observing the councilRussian federation, United Kingdom, the president of USA and the president of EU. Im beginning to observe a trend herenovice delegates tend to take foreign policy very lightly, as was clearly seen by the actions and words of the delegate of Afghanistan, with questionable policies. There was a lot of hypocritical talk about human rights and quite a bit of the customary mudslinging, and statements made by the president of USA made me chuckle involuntarily: My country is taking all steps for Islamic communities to actively participate in all events and curb the IsraelPalestinian war. Well, supplying one faction weapons is certainly a good way to curb a war, though many would doubt its humaneness. To be honest, I was quite disappointed by the delegate who simply said My country has no problems regarding Islamaphobia. Sometimes, it is sad that the foreign policies of certain countries have to make a few statements unreasonably redundant, but thats the way it is, I guess. Certainly, the delegates assembled here took no effort to tweak the policy in any way to actively eradicate Islamaphobia, and that was depressing. And in the middle of all this, claims about Europe being the motherland of democracy evoking cynical laughter, somewhere, social media was brought into the picture there were claims from Saudi Arabia that American and European countries have more control over social networking site and thats where I realized that if the delegates didnt go to their hotel rooms tonight, and have a serious thought about what theyre going to say tomorrow, this council would quite lose its way.

This was a very common occurrence in the OIC today, and the response usually was, Sit down, delegate, youre not recognized.

TYPICAL UNSC, TYPICAL FAST-PACED INTELLIGENT DEBATE In a world filled with countries that preach peace but endorse war, the UN does more than just a little to maintain humanity to the highest. The United Nations Security Council was convened today to discuss a crisis that had cropped up in Iranthe UN news centre pointed the spotlights at a bombing in Fordow, a nuclear research facility. The UNSC-ESS seemed more than capable of resolving this crisisbut things are never the same with the P5 enjoying their veto power, and bombshells could be pulled out of thin airliterally, though, in this case. The delegates were quick in establishing their positionssome natural, a select few nonsensical but Israel and most of its allies did justice to the positions that they were expected to take. Through the first session, though, the USA and India maintained a silencethat they later justified as a diplomatic silence, but it was still a little dubious to see that. At any rate, Iran was quite cornered until the news centre revealed another updateParchin, an Iranian military unit was bombed by air. This caused the countries to take a much more varied and unexpected stand, with Iran getting a little bit of sympathy from those who chose to remain neutral, earlier. Fuelled by efficient research, the delegates fought on, and the executive board was quite delighted with the progress the committee was making. With each passing update, the debate grew more cultured, and it was becoming tougher for countries to keep up their act without violating policy. Finally, USA broke its long silenceand it seemed that this crisis had broken USAs confidence: when Iran put up a blockade and declared a state of war, since it had had enough, USA was actually seen requesting Iran to remove the blockade. But it did seem that Iran and Israel were dominating the council, though on opposite sides, and the other countries seemed clueless as to what to do with a USA as silent as the one this UNSC had.This is the one council the press team has high hopes for, and it should make for some interesting debate tomorrowbut only if the delegate of USA steps up and acts sensible.

WILL ENTHUSIASM MAKE UP FOR A LACK OF SOLIDITY? The first day in the HRC of PSMUN 13 began with the agenda Universal Abolition of Death Penalty. Debate went on as usual, until the delegate of India emerged to provide the comic reliefwith enlightening speeches on how the Indian government believes in second chances, and how death penalty was abolished but used rarely, now and then. Even though the delegate of Iran was basically setting herself up for some trouble by mentioning the Shariya law, but this went unopposed by even its greatest adversariesat least, not opposed in a convincing manner. The delegates, though, seemed to find it very hard to come up with a topic for a moderated caucus, and finally specific application of death penalty was chosenIm still not entirely sure what it meant. But the moderated caucus did end up turning the debate up one notch, with countries backing up accusations with proof to go. But it is unfortunate that in a public forum such as the UN, delegates tend to go off topic in an attempt to wipe clean the black marks on their stance, and they do so without any regard to the topic at handand that, I think, was the problem that the HRC faced today: at least one among its many. It definitely seemed though, that the delegates were quite absorbed in the debate, no matter how off-topic it wentconsidering their reluctance to break for lunch. Will sheer enthusiasm facilitate a debate and end with a proper resolution? We have to wait and see.

TO INTERFERE OR NOT TO INTERFERE, THATS THE QUESTION! The first day of UNGA-DISEC in PSMUN 13 started with the agenda, Responsibility to Protect. The whole day, the debate was strongly divided between delegates who strongly condemned the R2P and delegates who wished to expand the R2P to suit the needs of its vehement opposers a little more. The ones who were absolutely accepting of R2P principles, like Australia, Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan, though with valid points, didnt get much recognition, and thats very characteristic of the way the UNGA works. The opposers of R2P put forth various points: such as R2P being a violation of the UN charter in their opinion, and intervention of the army being considered a breach of sovereignty, such as NATOs attack on Libya. The committee also discussed current situations such as the failures of R2P in Syria. This stand had a few supporters, with facts such as the raging internal wars in Syria, where Syria was fighting with its own citizens, making it a failure of R2Pwere brought out. The other side of the coin was USAs stance, which opined that it was impossible to help the refugees without intervention, and it was impossible to solve the crisis in Syria otherwise. Clearly, the staunch opposers had to settle for something, such as establishing the criteria for intervention to occur, if it were to occurand Iran said what it was itching to say for so long western powers cant interfere whenever they feel like it. And again, the topic of NATO assault on Libya was brought forward, and violations of the doctrines of R2P were heaping and heaping on USAs shoulders. Hopefully, USA has a strong offense tomorrowand Saudi Arabia stays awake in council.