BY: HANNAH REES, PRESBYTERIAN LADIES COLLEGE SYDNEY
During THIMUN Singapore, General Assembly 1 commenced discussing Disarmament and International Security yesterday afternoon. The chair and deputy chairs were Kahyun Park, Jingshen Zhao and Manas Bajaj, respectively. The floor was open for debate regarding the two resolutions that were lobbied and voted for yesterday regarding the fostering of Democratic progress in Myanmar. India and Canada’s resolutions – two “contradictories and direct opposites” as the delegate for Madagascar Ng Shu Hui and the delegate for Mauritius Jasmine Koh put it – are the two resolutions battled for support.
India’s resolution aimed to lift embargos and sanctions in Myanmar in order to improve trade to generate revenue, income and better infrastructure. Their response has been referred to as the “soft” response that pleases people and government, but may not necessarily encourage democratic progress.
Canada’s resolution planned to impose embargos and sanctions in a hardline approach to the issue that would pressure the government into democratic progress. It focused more closely on education and human rights than India’s resolution and is far more than “India’s plan to elevate their own power,” said delegate for Mauritius Jasmine Koh.
The question on everyone’s mind before the session commenced was the outcome of the debate. It seemed that India was the most popular candidate for the final resolution with Myanmar itself voting for the aforementioned resolution. Delegate of India Christopher Hoskings, speaking for their resolution, said “It doesn’t deal with human rights and issues because any [resolutions] that do, Myanmar will say no to.”
During THIMUN Singapore, General Assembly 1 commenced discussing Disarmament and International Security yesterday afternoon. The chair and deputy chairs were Kahyun Park, Jingshen Zhao and Manas Bajaj, respectively. The floor was open for debate regarding the two resolutions that were lobbied and voted for yesterday regarding the fostering of Democratic progress in Myanmar. India and Canada’s resolutions – two “contradictories and direct opposites” as the delegate for Madagascar Ng Shu Hui and the delegate for Mauritius Jasmine Koh put it – are the two resolutions battled for support.
India’s resolution aimed to lift embargos and sanctions in Myanmar in order to improve trade to generate revenue, income and better infrastructure. Their response has been referred to as the “soft” response that pleases people and government, but may not necessarily encourage democratic progress.
Canada’s resolution planned to impose embargos and sanctions in a hardline approach to the issue that would pressure the government into democratic progress. It focused more closely on education and human rights than India’s resolution and is far more than “India’s plan to elevate their own power,” said delegate for Mauritius Jasmine Koh.
The question on everyone’s mind before the session commenced was the outcome of the debate. It seemed that India was the most popular candidate for the final resolution with Myanmar itself voting for the aforementioned resolution. Delegate of India Christopher Hoskings, speaking for their resolution, said “It doesn’t deal with human rights and issues because any [resolutions] that do, Myanmar will say no to.”
No comments:
Post a Comment