A woman, the delegate of Afghanistan, rises from her seat and walks to the mic in the middle of the ballroom.
After slightly adjusting it, she argues to her fellow diplomats that “a well-functioning country is like a well-oiled machine.”
The roughly-one hundred members of SOCHUM have gathered today to discuss the fate of linguistic minorities.
Elaborating on why monolingualism would benefit the participating nations, she says that “[nations] shouldn’t make more conflicts in the name of [lingual] equality”.
But equally thoughtful and biting responses are on the table, like an acerbic rebuttal made by the Central African Republic.
“We are not a car factory,” he says, referring to the delegate of Afghanistan’s previous comment on being a “well-oiled machine”.
“We believe that we cannot simply toss out these smaller languages for the sake of efficiency.”
The debate goes back and forth, fiery, fruitful, and, most notably, unpredictable.
“Without it, we wouldn’t be where we are right now”
During an unmoderated caucus, the delegate of Egypt was willing to offer his stances on the issue at hand.
He suggests that monolingualism has been a key building block in the development of all Arabic nations.
“We believe that without [monolingualism],” he claims, “we wouldn’t be where we are right now, and we believe that other Arabic nations wouldn’t be as well off today either.”
Iraq, on the other hand, takes a more neutral stance that involves merely emphasizing a primary language.
“We don’t necessarily believe that we should eliminate minority languages,” she states. “However, we would like emphasize the primary language but still allow our citizens to keep their secondary languages.”
The delegate of Saudi Arabia stands in a stronger opposition to Egypt, who believes that although having a main language is much more practical, minority languages shouldn’t cease to exist.
In a brief interview, he discusses education on these languages: “I think that the some of the minority languages — not all, just the big ones— should continue being taught in schools.”
After slightly adjusting it, she argues to her fellow diplomats that “a well-functioning country is like a well-oiled machine.”
The roughly-one hundred members of SOCHUM have gathered today to discuss the fate of linguistic minorities.
Elaborating on why monolingualism would benefit the participating nations, she says that “[nations] shouldn’t make more conflicts in the name of [lingual] equality”.
But equally thoughtful and biting responses are on the table, like an acerbic rebuttal made by the Central African Republic.
“We are not a car factory,” he says, referring to the delegate of Afghanistan’s previous comment on being a “well-oiled machine”.
“We believe that we cannot simply toss out these smaller languages for the sake of efficiency.”
The debate goes back and forth, fiery, fruitful, and, most notably, unpredictable.
“Without it, we wouldn’t be where we are right now”
During an unmoderated caucus, the delegate of Egypt was willing to offer his stances on the issue at hand.
He suggests that monolingualism has been a key building block in the development of all Arabic nations.
“We believe that without [monolingualism],” he claims, “we wouldn’t be where we are right now, and we believe that other Arabic nations wouldn’t be as well off today either.”
Iraq, on the other hand, takes a more neutral stance that involves merely emphasizing a primary language.
“We don’t necessarily believe that we should eliminate minority languages,” she states. “However, we would like emphasize the primary language but still allow our citizens to keep their secondary languages.”
The delegate of Saudi Arabia stands in a stronger opposition to Egypt, who believes that although having a main language is much more practical, minority languages shouldn’t cease to exist.
In a brief interview, he discusses education on these languages: “I think that the some of the minority languages — not all, just the big ones— should continue being taught in schools.”