The current situation in which a resource shortage in Crimea has had serious implications on its citizens is being discussed. While all nations originally agreed that Crimea’s access to resources was a priority, Russia has had a “change of heart” (The Delegation of Angola) and now, it appears that the debate has once again turned into a development in which Russia must face the world.
One implementation that western nations are fighting to introduce are NGOs. China, a known ally of Russia, has been contradicting this belief with supporting points that NGOs can only offer some resources as renewable energy sources, and other valuable necessities cannot be provided by these organizations. Another valuable idea that has been presented to the committee is the application of a buffer period in which resources can easily be provided to Crimea, without tensions between opposing nations.
However, as the debate progresses, the delegation of Russia is becoming more hostile. After many caucuses, it is clear that Russia’s main goal to lift the sanctions set up against it. The “dropping of sanctions” (The Delegation of the Russian Federation) would be able to “promote trade between Russia and Ukraine” (The Delegation of the People’s Republic of China) such that precious resources such as water and energy will be able to easily access Crimea. The West, seeing the values of the elimination of these sanctions, has agreed to do this, but only if Russia agreed to implement NGOs in Crimea, which is unfortunately, one of Russia’s more stubborn stances.
Overall, the debate has been heated mainly due to disparities between stances on NGOs, and Russia’s unorthodox occupation of Crimea. As Russia believes that the resource shortage is the most substantial crisis, it has been avoiding discussion about the ethics of Crimea’s annexation. It is crucial that this committee stays focused on the issue at hand, the Crimean resource shortage, and not delve further into relating topics that can turn debate into turmoil.
One implementation that western nations are fighting to introduce are NGOs. China, a known ally of Russia, has been contradicting this belief with supporting points that NGOs can only offer some resources as renewable energy sources, and other valuable necessities cannot be provided by these organizations. Another valuable idea that has been presented to the committee is the application of a buffer period in which resources can easily be provided to Crimea, without tensions between opposing nations.
However, as the debate progresses, the delegation of Russia is becoming more hostile. After many caucuses, it is clear that Russia’s main goal to lift the sanctions set up against it. The “dropping of sanctions” (The Delegation of the Russian Federation) would be able to “promote trade between Russia and Ukraine” (The Delegation of the People’s Republic of China) such that precious resources such as water and energy will be able to easily access Crimea. The West, seeing the values of the elimination of these sanctions, has agreed to do this, but only if Russia agreed to implement NGOs in Crimea, which is unfortunately, one of Russia’s more stubborn stances.
Overall, the debate has been heated mainly due to disparities between stances on NGOs, and Russia’s unorthodox occupation of Crimea. As Russia believes that the resource shortage is the most substantial crisis, it has been avoiding discussion about the ethics of Crimea’s annexation. It is crucial that this committee stays focused on the issue at hand, the Crimean resource shortage, and not delve further into relating topics that can turn debate into turmoil.