.png)
Charla inaugural
Por: Violeta Ríos Hoyos
Session 1
Informal debate:
-
United States of America: states the causes of this problem, being the main one weak institutions. Invites the delegations to express their position towards the matter.
-
People’s Republic of China: The delegation is taking into account three topics to seek the solutions: electoral violence, violation of human rights, and the political stability of each of the countries present.
-
Côte d’Ivoire: considers the three claims of the People's Republic of China double-faced, since the political stability in China has been declining significantly, listing multiple violations of human rights happening in the countries.
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The delegation should consider two main points, such as sovereignty and not going against the constitution. Reinforces how important it is to follow the country's culture and beliefs in the path to reaching the solutions. The phrase “sovereignty goes over all” is added to the registry. Claims sovereignty goes above human rights.
-
Russian Federation: the delegation doesn't consider political stability to be an important point, and urges to attack the problem from the roots.
-
French Republic: proposes main topics to be taken into account to solve the problem, that are cyber hacking, soft power and purity of loyalty.
-
United States of America: urges the nations to focus on protecting the people during the elections, and proposes that countries with strong governments such as Germany and France help other countries to assure a good election. Claims that electoral education will solve this problem.
-
State of Libya: reinforces how important it is to have political stability and a stable government, and rejects the problem of cyber hacking that should be tackled during the elections.
-
People's Republic of China: proposes a solution of vote protectionism, and economic stability.
-
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: considered the root of the problem varies to each country's political situation and problems, so a solution should be targeted according to those factors.
-
Republic of Nicaragua: considers that religion is not a good way to debate the problem, since there are different religions on the committee and it will not help reach a solution.
-
People’s Republic of China: the delegation states that not focusing on religion is not a good decision. It considers it a base for the political stability, and proposed solutions, like the improvement of the elections security, and improvement of infrastructure of peace. It expects to promote knowledge about elections and candidates.
Session 2
Topic: Mechanisms for the protection of fundamental rights during elections in countries with political instability.
Speaker list discussion:
-
Joined intervention between the United States of America and the delegation of Côte d’Ivoire: both delegations propose solutions towards election violence, with four points: election credibility, security, prevention and to avoid and prevent violence incitation.
-
Republic of the Union of Myanmar: proposes different methods concerning the election methods, not only on the electoral tiemes. The delegation also proposes an evaluation process for each country and favors USA intervention.
-
People's Republic of China: defends the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's point to include religion on the solutions, not as the main fundamental but as something important to take into account to reach a solution. Thinks it is important to take into account electro legal frameworks, to improve the management with different subtopics.
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: ractifies that even if the country has its own sistem, does not mean it cannot provide assistance in different fields and with different cultures
Informal debate:
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: proposes a formal agreement, to reunite all the ideas and solutions into a formal document managed by the department of political and peacebuilding affairs.
-
Republic of South Sudan: urges the committee to reach a solution that also benefits the countries in a worst political state, where the elections are violent and dangerous for all citizens
-
People's Republic of China: proposes the evaluation of the types of assistance the United Nation provides, to assess if these departments are actually helping countries that are facing dictatorships.
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: reinstates the importance of sovereignty in either unstable or stable political countries. All the solutions proposed should be adapted to sovereignty.
The committee enters a crisis. After the elections of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the participation of the United Nations as a witness was questioned. It is speculated that it was influenced by the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Swiss Confederation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Regardless of the winning party, the Taliban won't step down from power and do not agree with the decisions. The civilians' right if liberty of expression is violated, and the UN asks the committee for a solution.
Informal debate
-
Republic of South Sudan: questions the effectiveness of the third party, and worries about the violation of their rights because of the Taliban decision. Considering the sovereignty of the country, a short term solution should be found.
-
United States of America: invites the delegations to come up with a plan to save the citizens from Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and help them to protect the rights of the habitants. The delegation refuses the claims that they influenced the votes and the UN supervision.
-
People's Republic of China: the delegation attacks the United States of America for their double standard, claiming the delegation is a hypocrite for advocating human rights and then committing acts of corruption.
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: the delegation proposes a way to stop the violence, taking as an example the frente nacional, that is that the two parties alternate power every 4 years. The Kingdom argues they should let the Talibans keep the power, because they are anyway going to cause violence and chaos. It is considered the best plan to reinstate order.
-
State of Libya: encourages the committee to stop shifting the blame and start reaching solutions long and short term, and pushes the proposal of an interim government or military resources as a defense. The delegation considers the peace keepers or other peace methods are really important in case the Taliban attacks.
Session 3
Formal debate
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: proposes a department that includes all solutions previously organized, following some principles, like the respect of sovereignty and the strict follow up of constitutional rights. It assigns parliaments from each country to evaluate the religions and culture to redact the final treaty.
-
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan: the delegation does not find the solutions viable and reject the peace keepers. They suggest a dialogue and negotiation with the Talisban.
-
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: argues that the peacekeepers deployment in Afghanistan keeps being the best decision, and urges the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to accept the help to reduce the tensions.
-
Russian Federation: states that the best is to send the peacekeepers, since it is the best option for the citizens. Many more civilians will be killed without the deployment of law enforcement.
-
United States of America: supports the decision not to deploy the peacemakers, but also not to negotiate with the Taliban. The delegation proposes a repetition of the election, this time ensuring the fairness of the results. They considered that if they are more observant, the Taliban will not get mad and commit irracional actions.
-
Democratic Republic of the Congo: the delegation argues that the peacekeepers are just going to bring more violence to the situacion, and pushes the committee to drift to different solutions to keep the real goal in mind.
-
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan: Afghanistan will not approve the peacekeepers. A different solution was accepted, and hopes it works.
Summary of day 1
The debate starts with an evaluation of the problem, with each country stating their objectives and what they hope to achieve in the committee. The debate gets quickly organized, stating three main points, that are electoral violence, violation of human rights, and the political stability of each of the countries present. Sovereignty is a fundamental point in the decision making progress, as multiple delegations agree that sovereignty goes above all. Education is reached as one of the main solutions of the problem of electoral violence. Another solution joins the election credibility, security, prevention and to avoid and prevent violence incitation.
On the second part of the day, the committee focuses on resolving a crisis in Afghanistan involving the unhappiness of the citizens because of the results of an election. The elections were supposedly tampered by important countries, and the Talisban refuses to give up the power. The committee offered help with peacemakers and multiple accords, but the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan refused all kinds of help and decided to go for a pacific dialogue approach.
La conferencia la presenta Samuel Restrepo, secretario general del 2018, estudiante de negocios internacionales. La conferencia busca introducirnos en el tema de Violencia electoral y R2P, las cuestiones principales del debate.
Comienza con el caso Zimbabue 2018, en donde múltiples países se unieron para asegurar la justicia y conciencia en las las votaciones, y el caso de Kenia 2007, donde un presidente fue electo más la población no lo aceptó, causando violencia y afectando el contexto político.
Samuel explica las relaciones entre las elecciones y la violencia, y como el contexto social y económico del país afecta estos factores. Explica las causas estructurales la violencia electoral, mostrando que se basa en las débiles estructuras electorales, las divisiones sociales y desigualdades económicas, y el historial de violencia política. Nos muestra además los propósitos de las misiones de observación electoral, como es el aumento de la fianza.
Expone también las herramientas para responder a la violencia electoral, en las cuales están herramientas como mejorar las gestiones de las elecciones, ejercer diplomacia preventiva y el apoyo a los mecanismos creíbles de resolución de conflictos.
Continuando, se explica la responsabilidad para proteger, R2P, en donde la comunidad internacional actúa a través del consejo de seguridad de las naciones unidas y adopta medidas para cumplir la responsabilidad de proteger
Siguiente, expone el caso de Libia, en donde el R2P fue aplicado, y se cuestiona su funcionalidad. Se compara este caso con la situación de la costa de marfil, en donde la responsabilidad de proteger también fue aplicada.