On April 1 2017, the United Nations DISEC committee engaged in a tempestuous debate regarding demilitarizing the Arctic. The debate started out with a radical statement from the Syrian Arab Republic as they proposed the Assad regime taking complete control over the Arctic. However, the Russian Federation countered by proposing further management of resources, military transparency which would monitor trade groups, and an increase in the powers of the Arctic Council giving it a greater mandate which would create a “mini EU” for the arctic.
Ireland then called out the fellow delegation of Canada for not providing the committee with a strong stance and not upholding a moral obligation of protecting the Arctic. The delegation of Germany gave a strongly opinionated presentation regarding their beliefs on creating an Arctic Council. Germany also stated how the international community is obligated to look upon the Arctic as a “place with powerful status” to ensure its “social growth” on an international level.
The debate took a surprising turn when North Korea and South Korea both agreed on improving equal rights and described themselves as, “kind and loving people.” The delegations argued that it is completely unjust to allow other countries to exploit the resources in the Arctic and the committee had a very positive reaction to this proposal.
Belarus stated that countries within the Arctic Circle should have the most say in what is being done with the resources in the Arctic. The delegation of Belarus encouraged the fellow delegations to take into account the Arctic’s best interest and the most effective way to achieve this.
China then argued that the transparency of militarism must be discussed, as the involvement of nuclear weapons requires a sense of transparency. China then acknowledged that the lack of response from Canada is equally immoral as it is illogical.
Overall, the entire session was very active and efficient. The delegations seemed to have a very strong sense of community when trying to resolve the problem. Despite some clear differences between certain delegations the atmosphere in the committee was extremely positive.
Ireland then called out the fellow delegation of Canada for not providing the committee with a strong stance and not upholding a moral obligation of protecting the Arctic. The delegation of Germany gave a strongly opinionated presentation regarding their beliefs on creating an Arctic Council. Germany also stated how the international community is obligated to look upon the Arctic as a “place with powerful status” to ensure its “social growth” on an international level.
The debate took a surprising turn when North Korea and South Korea both agreed on improving equal rights and described themselves as, “kind and loving people.” The delegations argued that it is completely unjust to allow other countries to exploit the resources in the Arctic and the committee had a very positive reaction to this proposal.
Belarus stated that countries within the Arctic Circle should have the most say in what is being done with the resources in the Arctic. The delegation of Belarus encouraged the fellow delegations to take into account the Arctic’s best interest and the most effective way to achieve this.
China then argued that the transparency of militarism must be discussed, as the involvement of nuclear weapons requires a sense of transparency. China then acknowledged that the lack of response from Canada is equally immoral as it is illogical.
Overall, the entire session was very active and efficient. The delegations seemed to have a very strong sense of community when trying to resolve the problem. Despite some clear differences between certain delegations the atmosphere in the committee was extremely positive.