UNODA

As the first day at UNODA arrives, enthusiastic delegates start off with their speeches and statements.

​

First Session

At the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs, delegates were eager to start the debate. The chair Maria Malheiros opened the first session by welcoming all members, both online and in person, and the vice-chair Enzo Barbancho also made his opening speech.

​

General orientations were given about working papers, draft resolutions, rules of procedure, motions and other details.  After an ice-breaking game, the members of the committee were ready to start. 

​

The Federal Republic of Germany made an opening speech and was followed by the others delegations. With a motion in order to open the Speakers List, the delegation of Israel started their speech by presenting the nation’s opinion on nuclear weapons.

​

The delegate of Russia then made a Point of Information by saying that the delegation of Israel led an ambiguous speech in regards to the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons. 

​

Furthermore, the delegation of India pointed out that the best action, though impossible, would be by establishing a nuclear-weapon free zone. Nevertheless, due to many obstacles, they suggested using partial deactivation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East as a solution to the council’s theme.

​

The delegation of Syria emphasized the priority of avoiding nuclear weapons, stating that it can cause a worldwide catastrophe. Given this declaration, the delegation of Israel proceeded to make a Point of Information regarding the previous speech, raising doubts regarding the Israeli ownership of nuclear weapons. The delegation of Syria responded by saying that they merely wanted to show how the manipulation of such armament can lead to many unfortunate circumstances. 

​

After some direct controversy in regards to the delegate of Syria’s statement, the Russian delegation disclosed that they are in favor of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon free zone. However, after some Points of Information made by fellow delegates, they highlighted that the answer to the committee’s main inquiry isn’t to abolish the use of nuclear weapons. 

​

The session was ended by 11:58am and the delegates and chairs proceeded to their lunch break.

 

Second Session

At 13:33 the council returned to their second session, and the delegation of Iraq stated to be against the use of nuclear weapons, mentioning the delegation of Israel and Russia. The delegate of Israel answered by correcting their speech when they spoke about the possession of nuclear-weapons, referring to “assurance”. They also pointed out the fact that the State of Israel is seen as a threat when owning this type of armament, whereas other countries with major power are not labeled as that. The delegation of Israel also pointed out the fact that they see their security threatened by neighbor countries.

​

Facing this statement, the delegation of Holy See asked the Israeli delegate if the conflicts mentioned were mainly due to religion and whether this would be a reason to employ nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the answer given referred to other factors beyond religious viewpoints. Additionally, to the previous speech, the delegation of Russia questioned what the delegate of Israel meant by “assurance”.

​

Subsequently, in order to achieve the goals proposed by the committee, a motion for a semi-moderated caucus was approved and the delegates created a shared document in order to organize topics. Following the suggestion of the delegation of India, the members of the committee proceeded to divide the document into two subtopics: the use of nuclear weapons and the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone. The delegates discussed on which topics needed to be mentioned and, after a motion for an extension of 10 minutes of the semi-moderated caucus, they were able to agree altogether and approve the agenda, followed by the recognition of the chairs.

​

As the debate deepened, the delegation of United Arab Emirates asked the State Israel about the establishment of peace and talked about the controversy regarding Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, but the Israeli delegation responded that the conflicts date to an earlier period and that they are unconnected to the current nuclear-weapon disagreement.

​

Another point revolving the development of nuclear-weapons in Israel was the peace threatening, as presented by the delegation of Holy See. As they suggested creating treaties and agreements once this phenomenon involves other countries, the delegate of Israel questioned the focus that is brough only to the State of Israel, leaving the others countries that haven’t agreed with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

​

Given a motion for a semi-moderated caucus, the debate focused, this time, on the security guarantee, being stressed mainly by the delegate of the United Arab Emirates. Throughout the discussion, transparency and honesty were themes mentioned frequently, as the members tried to devise solutions. With the creation of the first working paper, delegates could discuss these matters and clauses created, such as the first one: “Declares the establishment of a no first use policy countries in the Middle East”, which created disturbance among the debate. As the upcoming end of session, the question of whether the Israeli nuclear-weapons hold be seen as an encouragement to other countries remained unsettled. 

 

Third Session

After a rushed break, the third and last session of the first day of Posmun started off with the resolution of the first working paper. Through a 5 minutes semi-moderated caucus the delegates could refine the document and later send it to the chairs in order to achieve a recognition and approval.

​

After some discussion, the delegation of India, together with the delegate of Israel, presented the first working paper and the committee proceeded with the voting and eventual consent of the document. 

​

As one of the committee’s objectives was reached, further questions were raised, such as the limitations imposed by the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ). As the delegates entered a semi-moderated caucus, breakout rooms were created in order to divide the members of the committee into two groups, one in favor of nuclear technology and materials and the other against it. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the State of Israel, the Russian Federation, the Republic of India, the Republic of Iraq, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the United Arab Emirates and the delegation of the Holy See stated being in favor of the development of such applied science, whereas the Federal Republic of Germany, the Syria Arab Republic, the French Republic and People’s Republic of China presented themselves as the opposition. 

​

The pro-fraction initiated a shared document with the aim to acknowledge the reasons to employ nuclear technologies. Once the discussion in the smaller group diminished, the committee returned to a whole and every member contributed to the resolution of the second working paper until the session was ended.

​

Bright day at UNODA – Rush and even more debating

 

Fourth Session

As a new day dawns at the UNODA committee, energetic delegates start off the debate with an unmoderated caucus in order to finish the second working paper which remained unfinished due to lack of time in the third session.

​

They discussed to which extent could the use of nuclear technology be produced and how would this be insured.  Then, as the working paper was sent to chairs, it did not pass with the majority of the votes and the delegations worked together as means to achieve the resolution of this document.

​

The committee worked together through semi-moderated caucuses and tried to come up with solutions together as the majority seemed to have the same opinion about the clauses presented in the second working paper. As the debate extended, the delegates had some difficulties in finishing the document and asked regularly for more time.  Nevertheless, they were able to present and approve the second working paper and include it in the committee’s draft resolution.

​

The members of UNODA then proceeded with the assembly of other documents that contribute to the final decision of the committee. The third draft resolution was quickly created and the delegations further discussed which points should be made and presented in this document. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who is responsible to ensure peaceful manipulation of nuclear technology, was mainly in the spotlight. As the debate reached a more complex sphere, the delegations considered safe areas to dispose nuclear waste that result from the use of such applied science and how would the action be funded and supervised.

 

Fifth Session

In the second session of the day, the delegates continued with the debate related to the third working paper made by the members of the committee. As they approached the doubts raised by the topic of the disposal of nuclear materials, but this line of thought was interrupted as press members arrived at the committee with urgent news: The pope declared being against some measures from India, such as the one made in regard to the guarantee of world peace.

​

As a subtle feeling of unbelief overflowed into the committee, the delegation of the Holy See took no time to position themselves by asking for transparency and honesty from the Indian government. As response, the delegate of India claimed that their country is one of the only nations who supported  the International Fund on Disarmament of Nuclear Weapons established by the working paper nr.3.  Additionally, the delegation claimed to be truthful and willing to open its borders for an inspection of the IAEA.

​

With the change of focus of the debate, delegates rushed to pick sides and re-arrange their arguments. Whilst the delegation of the Holy See emphasized the fact that the Republic of India has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the opposite side supports their freedom of actions and national security that are ensured by their decision.

​

On and on the delegates tried convince each other through argument in regards to the controversy involving the Republic of India and the NPT. Then, as the delegate of India presented a source claiming that People’s Republic of China possessed a great amount of nuclear weapons, some disturbance was created, but was soon forgotten as the delegation of Israel and the delegate of India presented the third working paper, successfully approving the document by major consent of the committee.

 

Sixth Session

Due to some disagreement between the delegate of China and the delegation on India, sources were presented towards the developing of nuclear weapons between both nations. Nevertheless, the press team announced that the State of Israel is planning a military parade with nuclear weapons surrounding  Syria’s frontiers. The United Arab Emirates promptly announced being upset by this action.

​

As the crisis developed, the delegations talked through their countries’ measures taking into account every document that was approved during the committee. The delegation of Syria presented themselves threatened by the Israeli parade and other countries supported the repudiation of the nuclear proliferation, such as the Iranian delegation.

​

With the escalation of the debate, the Deputy Secretary General, Mr. Alzueta, announced that there is news about China’s military aid being sent to Syria in order to prevent any attacks from Israel. The situation turned very fragile as delegates negotiated apology letters, withdraw from Chinese military and even a possible territory devolution.

​

With division of two blocks, the delegations were able to further discuss the matters brought by the crisis and new developments. A timeline to attend the requests was suggested as well as a compensation towards the Syrian Arab Republic. Facing different point of views, the delegates worked together in order to achieve the best solution for every nation present at the committee. They then prepared a crisis resolution and trailed a long path until all clauses were declared and concluded the dilemma. The majority voted in favor of the document except for the People’s Republic of China. Nevertheless, the delegates loss some minutes from their coffee break due to the crisis.

 

Seventh Session

After dealing with a crisis, the committee was eager to continue on with the solution of the topics from the agenda previously elaborated. Treaty, disarmament and NPT were topics frequently mentioned during the debate, especially given the fact that the next topics of the document.

​

The five nuclear-weapon states were given higher focus, but many other delegates participated in the debate.The topic of a reduction of both production and usage of nuclear weapons was raised during the last session of the day.

​

Eight Session

The last day at the UNODA committee started off with the continuity of the fourth working paper as it remained unfinished by the end of the seventh session. The debate followed  as  delegates discussed clauses and reasons that should be noted in the document. There were many disagreements, especially due to the rejection of the Chinese delegation to be a main submitter.  

​

The delegation of France as well as the delegation of Russia then presented the working paper nr. 4 and achieved approval by the chair and the majority of the committee as an official document. 

​

As the members of the UNODA discussed every single topic of the agenda that was elaborated by them, the chairs suggested a new topic to be discussed: Validity of previous treaties, regarding the use of nuclear weapons in other regions. The delegations were quick in creating a fifth working paper in order to discuss the matters raised by the new issue of the agenda.

​

As for the concern of the Republic of Cuba, the delegations encouraged the creation of a funding system to support the surveillance of treaties as example through the International Atomic Energy Agency. In order to promote safety and peace, the delegates agreed on a reaffirmation of treaties that established Nuclear Weapons Free Zone from different countries around the world.

 

Ninth Session

Being the last session of the Posmun, the seventh session of the UNODA committee arrived steadily and peacefully. The delegates proceeded by presenting and approving the fifth working paper, meaning that they were now able to proceed with the draft resolution.

​

The elaboration of the document was initially characterized by a remarkable silence. The delegations went ahead by debating which countries would be main submitters and  organizing the rest of the list. The delegation of China seemed to cause a commotion among the other delegates since they were against being a head applicant. 

​

Though the draft resolution was swiftly settled, the chairs recommended a small change but that was quickly arranged and the majority of the delegates voted in favor of the resolution of the document. Congratulations were given and the members of the committee concluded the debate with cheerfulness and pleasure. 

​

The delegation of the Holy See finished the committee with a pray and the chairs honored the members and congratulated them.