Conference on the United Nations & The Future
February 1-2, 2002
The Official Reports from the Strong and the Weak
-James McDonald (Kirkwood H.S., 2004) and Erin Seals (Kirkwood H.S., 2002)
Involved in the Strong and the Weak Committee were:
Adam Conway- Chairperson
Gretchen Haupt- Chairperson
Tihana Bule- Russian Federation
Laura Casey- Cuba
Annette Meyer- Israel
Andrew McMahon- Saudi Arabia
Maura McDonnell- Egypt
Cecilia Makavec- United States
Camille Loftin- Costa Rica
Maggie Lillmars- France
Megan Kennedy- Germany
Regina Jeff- Jamaica
Chanelle Harris- China
Carrie Grossgloss- South Africa
Stephen Griffard- Monaco
Amelia Flood- United Kingdom
James McDonald- Bosnia
Mimi Ryan- Japan
Erin Seals- India
Jasmine Williams- Croatia
Britni Taylor- Mexico
Nicole Vickers- Mali
Adam and Gretchen warmed us up by having us discuss what we believe are the principle differences between strong and weak countries. A few of the adjectives used to describe strong countries were- strong economy, diversity, a strong culture, opportunities for education for most people, a strong military, and a stable government. A few attributes of a weak country were: outdated or no military, poverty, civil war, over population, lack of education of a large percentage of the population, lack of (stable) government, and a weak economy.
Another issue that we discussed in detail is the problem of international bullying. There are many ways that strong countries bully weak countries into complying with the strong country’s powers. Some of the ways weaker countries get bullied are
· Stronger countries creating trade embargoes
· Economic Sanctions
· Effects- not enough food, economy fails, and medical systems fail
· Military might/prowess
· Cultural Influence (fear of)
· Americanization
· Westernization
· Land grabbing
· Historical Power
· Veto
The question we decided to focus on for this weekend is: How do we make everything more fair/equal/good?
Before beginning to work on the actual proposals, we discussed topics and issues for proposals:
· veto power
· penalties for members
· Powers of the Security Council
· Giving states with developed military power more votes
· Regional Alliances
· Defining Sovereignty
· Role of world court
· Does UN have a right?
· Aspects of veto power (overrides)
· Foreign aide (responsibility)
· Defining and agreeing on borders
· Cultural Imperialism- religion.
1st Session, 2nd Day
For the first fifteen or twenty minutes, the Strong and the Weak Committee regrouped, and worked on our proposals again. Then, we entered and introduced all of the proposals. They include:
· SW-01 South Africa- Women’s Rights
· SW-02 Germany: Security Council Reform
· SW-03 United Kingdom- Security Council Reform
· SW-04 Saudi Arabia- Sovereignty Issues
· SW-05 Japan- Super Robot and Godzilla to run UN
· SW-06 India- UN Dues
After a vote, we decided to begin with SW-03. The basic idea of the United Kingdom’s proposal was to reconstruct veto power. One non-permanent nation would be given veto-power. The nation would be chosen by a lottery. The nation would hold the power for the duration of their three year term. If the veto power is exercised, there are several ways it can be challenged. 2/3 Majority of non permanent members are required to overturn the veto. This topic was discussed rather heatedly, especially because Germany’s SW-02 was dealing with a different idea of reform for the same idea. Some countries believed this idea could get complicated, if a controversial country were to receive the veto power. However, when we voted on the proposal, it passed, with 13 countries voting for it, 7 voting against it, and no abstentions.
After we finished with SW-03, it was time to decide a new proposal to talk about. We decided not to talk about SW-02 would not be talked about, since we had already passed are resolution on the same subject. We decided that, after lunch, we would discuss SW-06.
Right after lunch, despite a bit of an energy slump, we started right off with discussing SW-06. The basic idea about SW-06 was to become more strict on countries who don’t pay their UN dues and can, and to define how to investigate if a country is in enough economical trouble that they can’t pay UN dues. The proposal said that if a country does not pay his dues for reasons other than financial trouble for more than two years, he loses the privilege to vote until all dues are paid. Also, if country’s can’t pay their dues because they are in a poor economical state, they are exempted from this rule, and a partial payment plan or other agreement will be discussed. The economic situation of the country will be investigated by the Security Council. The proposal also outlined possible extenuating circumstance that a country could not pay their dues. At first, there is a little bit of confusion over some of the wording of the amendment, but after a fifteen minute Caucus (in which we didn’t get raucous!), everything is cleared up. United Kingdom proposes a friendly amendment, changing the committee of who will actually investigate the financial situation of each country. After that, we took a vote. This resolution also passed, with 12 people voting yes, 2 people voting no, and 4 abstentions. Then we took a break.
After the break, we debated on which proposal to talk about next. We decided on SW-04, about Sovereignty. SW-04 basically said that Sovereignty can, under certain circumstances, be “considered silly”, and that, with a 2/3 vote and pending popular agreement, national sovereignty can be infringed upon. This was met with much ambivalence: the people who agreed with this proposal were strongly in favor of it, but the people opposed felt like it needed a lot of work. Even Saudi Arabia, the main backer of this bill, admitted this was a rough proposal, and the bill needed a little bit of work. However, Saudi Arabia defended his proposal, saying that “Our idea is valid and useful, even though our phrasing is incomplete”. China brought up the argument that, once the power of breaking sovereignty is given, “What sorts of UN actions will this apply to?” Even though the proposal was made with the most honorable, some countries were worried that the power might be taken advantage of. Also, some people were unclear of the definition of sovereignty. A few friendly amendments were made to specify more clearly the reasons that sovereignty could be overruled. A caucus was called to discuss the definition of sovereignty, and to discuss amendments. After the caucus, China proposed an unfriendly amendment, to change clause one so that it reads that sovereignty can’t be infringed on under any circumstances, because “Violating sovereignty is violating human rights”. The amendment failed, with 6 people voting for it, 13 people voting against it, and 1 abstention. The resolution was passed.
Next, we discussed SW-01, Culture Imperialism with Religion. This proposal discussed giving information to countries in weak economical standing about women and children’s rights. This proposal was soon tabled.
The last few minutes were probably the most animated of the weekend. This is when we had the long awaited discussion of SW-05. This resolution discussed replacing all delegates with an infallible, supreme super robot that would formulate perfect laws and policies that will keep the world in perfect working order. Godzilla would act as the supreme policing force. The resolution was excellently understood, thanks to a skit that acted out all of the clauses in the resolution. There was discrepancy, however, over one of the clauses that included much violence towards Washington DC. That clause was stricken, and a vote was taken on the resolution. Despite much enthusiasm and animated debate over the Super Robot/ Godzilla way of life, the resolution failed. By this time, the Strong and the Weak session of the weekend was over.