2. NATO: A question of morals or real
action?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
appeared to be a very lively committee.
Within the very first 40 minutes in session,
the delegates were soon able to engage in fi-
ery debates, with the chairs giving the floor
to more than 10 delegates.
The long question of the Islamic State,
also known as “Daesh”, ISIS or ISIL among
members of the Alliance, seemed to prevail
within the organisation’s priorities. Tur-
key’s actions against the rebel PKK Kurdish
group were constantly called into question,
whereas USA involvement in the region
automatically labelled Turkey as a “natural
NATO ally”.
The Danish delegation said, ‘This body
must recognise and support the Kurdish
initiative.’ The delegate questioned Turkish
methods in the region and called for the
denial of ‘ISIL’s propaganda.’ On the other
hand the delegate of Lithuania gave a pas-
sionate speech for collective security and
peace, remaining open to points of informa-
tion. Consequently, Croatia asked about how
NATO should proceed with this. Lithuania
said that NATO needs to ‘fight fire with fire,’
following the US model, but time elapsed
before the delegate finished his thoughts.
Later on, Slovakia declared that the dele-
gate shares the views expressed by Italy and
Hungary, with particular emphasis on the
fact that this conflict impacts all over Eu-
rope; it is an economic and political unrest,
which goes beyond the border of Turkey and
Syria. The French delegation stood up for a
united coalition and democratisation of the
region.
Finally, Belgium stood up, dismissing
all the arguments, saying that NATO has
done enough talking, but now it is time for
real solution. Amongst Belgium’s proposed
arguments were the following: a Turkish
ceasefire with PKK, the creation of a re-
gional capacity for aviation security, refugee
camps, and targeting oil fields to stop the
core source fuelling ISIS.
G-20: A question of procedure
While NATO appeared fully ready to
bomb the living inferno out of the Islam-
ic State, a number of G-20 member states
seemed to think otherwise. During the first
round of debate, the delegate of Saudi Ara-
bia stressed the importance of the Saudi’s
presence in the G-20 panel, highlighting
that Saudi Arabia and Turkey were the only
states in the Middle East which were includ-
ed in the G-20 committee.
The delegate proceeded, saying that ‘The
delegation does not want to see another Iraq
or Afghanistan,’ labelling the happenings in
those areas as severely catastrophic, both to
the economy, but as well as to the socio-po-
litical stability of both coutries, Iraq and Af-
ghanistan.
The delegation of India, in support of
other member-states stated that “fire can-
not be fought with fire”, therefore the risks
exceeded the benefits of intervention, es-
tablishing that there should be no further
intervention in the conflict. Certainly, this is
incompatible with Lithuania’s point of view,
as expressed in NATO.
The delegate of South Korea, however,
provided some statistics. So far, there have
been more 500,000 victims in Syria, with
millions of refugees being constantly relo-
cated. These developments, according to the
delegate, fuel a process by which global de-
velopment is hindered. South Korea called
for all great powers to compromise and to
tackle this issue together, being the world’s
strongest economies.
Nevertheless, it seemed there was a ques-
tion of procedure among the delegates. The
chair had to clarify the rules of procedure
regarding time of speech and the yielding of
the floor on at least two occasions within the
first rounds of debates. The chairs decided,
then, that all questions should be submitted
through paper notes in the future. Let us
hope that this way, more time will be saved
for more fruitful discussions, without inter-
rupting debate time.
A2 • INTERNATIONAL NEWS THE LIMUN TIMES • 28 FEBRUARY 2016
COMMITTEE UPDATES COMMITTEE COVERAGE
NATO and G-20 Committee Updates
To intervene or not to intervene? That is the question.
PETROS PETRIKKOS
LONDON, UK
AusterityvWelfare[2016]IMF
PETROS PETRIKKOS
LONDON, UK
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) debated on Saturday the
conditionality terms of loans to developing countries. Strings attached
like austerity measures were not enjoyed by the majority of the develop-
ing nations, thus the committee took up on a special mission to work on
improving these conditionality terms.
The Press Team went just before the committee finished their un-
moderated caucus, putting together a draft resolution. In broad terms,
the IMF agreed on the majority of issues, but members were mainly
debating minor details throughout the day. The chairs were delighted to
share that the International Monetary Fund might be able to ‘save the
world financially,’ though it appeared that some delegates shared quite
different views.
Lithuania said that NATO needs to ‘fight fire with fire,’ following the US
model, but time elapsed before the delegate finished his thoughts.
Comments overheard
Favourite quotes from #LIMUN2016
THE LIMUN TIMES NEWS TEAM
LONDON, UK
‘For a third-world country, you’re pretty well-developed.’
‘I Motion to invade Djibouti with the aid of Greece.’
‘Belize let me hold you.’
‘I’m Hungary for Djibouti.’
‘Motion for a one-on-one unmoderated caucus.’
‘I Ecuador you.’
‘I want to visit your Netherlands.’
‘You can lift my sanctions any day!’
‘If I were a gavel, I would bang you all night.’
‘I motion to table the Chair.’
‘You’re my point of personal inquiry.’
‘In Pakistan we like tea - black tea, green tea, white tea. But most of
all, we like sovereignty.’
‘Can I put missiles in your country?’
‘Is that a placard in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?’
‘I motion to enlongate the caucus.’
Procedural clarification
ICJ receives special instructions on toiletting
VALERIA VIGILANTE
LONDON, UK
‘The problem with ICJ is that it has a different procedural rules from
the other United Nations bodies’ explained Alexia Sideri, chair of the
International Court of Justice on the delegates’ lack of knowledge of the
procedural rules.
Indeed, in less than an hour, the chairs had to clarify the procedure
several times, sometimes even going over the same rules again and
again. At some point the chair even questioned whether the delegates
have read the rules at all. She had to remind the purpose of the moder-
ate caucus: to assess the jurisdiction of the court on the topic.
The debate going on was really intense and beautiful, said the chair,
because the delegates are discussing global nuclear armament but from
a legal side. However the discussion was slowed down by the delegates
who were confused between the formal and informal procedures. For
instance, the chairs had to clarify not only the voting procedures twice
but also the rules on the order of motion to be voted. As a matter of fact,
given the complexity of the topic debated and the representatives’ in-
ability to grasp firmly the rules, the talks were expected to last until late.
The chairs foresaw that they would encounter these difficulties not
only because the ICJ has different rules but also because they were
aware of the overall level of experience. Indeed, ICJ requires a solid le-
gal background, a firm grasp of laws and legal procedures.
In order to get the rules experience is necessary and for the majority
of the delegates, LIMUN is their first experience as representatives in
the ICJ.
To the extent that the chair had to remind the delegates that they
were allowed to get out only for a toilet break. Eventually, she decid-
ed that they had to notify when they went to toilet because ‘there was
something strange going on.’
• P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E L I M U N E Y E
![NATO: A question of morals or real
action?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
appeared to be a very lively committee.
Within the very first 40 minutes in session,
the delegates were soon able to engage in fi-
ery debates, with the chairs giving the floor
to more than 10 delegates.
The long question of the Islamic State,
also known as “Daesh”, ISIS or ISIL among
members of the Alliance, seemed to prevail
within the organisation’s priorities. Tur-
key’s actions against the rebel PKK Kurdish
group were constantly called into question,
whereas USA involvement in the region
automatically labelled Turkey as a “natural
NATO ally”.
The Danish delegation said, ‘This body
must recognise and support the Kurdish
initiative.’ The delegate questioned Turkish
methods in the region and called for the
denial of ‘ISIL’s propaganda.’ On the other
hand the delegate of Lithuania gave a pas-
sionate speech for collective security and
peace, remaining open to points of informa-
tion. Consequently, Croatia asked about how
NATO should proceed with this. Lithuania
said that NATO needs to ‘fight fire with fire,’
following the US model, but time elapsed
before the delegate finished his thoughts.
Later on, Slovakia declared that the dele-
gate shares the views expressed by Italy and
Hungary, with particular emphasis on the
fact that this conflict impacts all over Eu-
rope; it is an economic and political unrest,
which goes beyond the border of Turkey and
Syria. The French delegation stood up for a
united coalition and democratisation of the
region.
Finally, Belgium stood up, dismissing
all the arguments, saying that NATO has
done enough talking, but now it is time for
real solution. Amongst Belgium’s proposed
arguments were the following: a Turkish
ceasefire with PKK, the creation of a re-
gional capacity for aviation security, refugee
camps, and targeting oil fields to stop the
core source fuelling ISIS.
G-20: A question of procedure
While NATO appeared fully ready to
bomb the living inferno out of the Islam-
ic State, a number of G-20 member states
seemed to think otherwise. During the first
round of debate, the delegate of Saudi Ara-
bia stressed the importance of the Saudi’s
presence in the G-20 panel, highlighting
that Saudi Arabia and Turkey were the only
states in the Middle East which were includ-
ed in the G-20 committee.
The delegate proceeded, saying that ‘The
delegation does not want to see another Iraq
or Afghanistan,’ labelling the happenings in
those areas as severely catastrophic, both to
the economy, but as well as to the socio-po-
litical stability of both coutries, Iraq and Af-
ghanistan.
The delegation of India, in support of
other member-states stated that “fire can-
not be fought with fire”, therefore the risks
exceeded the benefits of intervention, es-
tablishing that there should be no further
intervention in the conflict. Certainly, this is
incompatible with Lithuania’s point of view,
as expressed in NATO.
The delegate of South Korea, however,
provided some statistics. So far, there have
been more 500,000 victims in Syria, with
millions of refugees being constantly relo-
cated. These developments, according to the
delegate, fuel a process by which global de-
velopment is hindered. South Korea called
for all great powers to compromise and to
tackle this issue together, being the world’s
strongest economies.
Nevertheless, it seemed there was a ques-
tion of procedure among the delegates. The
chair had to clarify the rules of procedure
regarding time of speech and the yielding of
the floor on at least two occasions within the
first rounds of debates. The chairs decided,
then, that all questions should be submitted
through paper notes in the future. Let us
hope that this way, more time will be saved
for more fruitful discussions, without inter-
rupting debate time.
A2 • INTERNATIONAL NEWS THE LIMUN TIMES • 28 FEBRUARY 2016
COMMITTEE UPDATES COMMITTEE COVERAGE
NATO and G-20 Committee Updates
To intervene or not to intervene? That is the question.
PETROS PETRIKKOS
LONDON, UK
AusterityvWelfare[2016]IMF
PETROS PETRIKKOS
LONDON, UK
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) debated on Saturday the
conditionality terms of loans to developing countries. Strings attached
like austerity measures were not enjoyed by the majority of the develop-
ing nations, thus the committee took up on a special mission to work on
improving these conditionality terms.
The Press Team went just before the committee finished their un-
moderated caucus, putting together a draft resolution. In broad terms,
the IMF agreed on the majority of issues, but members were mainly
debating minor details throughout the day. The chairs were delighted to
share that the International Monetary Fund might be able to ‘save the
world financially,’ though it appeared that some delegates shared quite
different views.
Lithuania said that NATO needs to ‘fight fire with fire,’ following the US
model, but time elapsed before the delegate finished his thoughts.
Comments overheard
Favourite quotes from #LIMUN2016
THE LIMUN TIMES NEWS TEAM
LONDON, UK
‘For a third-world country, you’re pretty well-developed.’
‘I Motion to invade Djibouti with the aid of Greece.’
‘Belize let me hold you.’
‘I’m Hungary for Djibouti.’
‘Motion for a one-on-one unmoderated caucus.’
‘I Ecuador you.’
‘I want to visit your Netherlands.’
‘You can lift my sanctions any day!’
‘If I were a gavel, I would bang you all night.’
‘I motion to table the Chair.’
‘You’re my point of personal inquiry.’
‘In Pakistan we like tea - black tea, green tea, white tea. But most of
all, we like sovereignty.’
‘Can I put missiles in your country?’
‘Is that a placard in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?’
‘I motion to enlongate the caucus.’
Procedural clarification
ICJ receives special instructions on toiletting
VALERIA VIGILANTE
LONDON, UK
‘The problem with ICJ is that it has a different procedural rules from
the other United Nations bodies’ explained Alexia Sideri, chair of the
International Court of Justice on the delegates’ lack of knowledge of the
procedural rules.
Indeed, in less than an hour, the chairs had to clarify the procedure
several times, sometimes even going over the same rules again and
again. At some point the chair even questioned whether the delegates
have read the rules at all. She had to remind the purpose of the moder-
ate caucus: to assess the jurisdiction of the court on the topic.
The debate going on was really intense and beautiful, said the chair,
because the delegates are discussing global nuclear armament but from
a legal side. However the discussion was slowed down by the delegates
who were confused between the formal and informal procedures. For
instance, the chairs had to clarify not only the voting procedures twice
but also the rules on the order of motion to be voted. As a matter of fact,
given the complexity of the topic debated and the representatives’ in-
ability to grasp firmly the rules, the talks were expected to last until late.
The chairs foresaw that they would encounter these difficulties not
only because the ICJ has different rules but also because they were
aware of the overall level of experience. Indeed, ICJ requires a solid le-
gal background, a firm grasp of laws and legal procedures.
In order to get the rules experience is necessary and for the majority
of the delegates, LIMUN is their first experience as representatives in
the ICJ.
To the extent that the chair had to remind the delegates that they
were allowed to get out only for a toilet break. Eventually, she decid-
ed that they had to notify when they went to toilet because ‘there was
something strange going on.’
• P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E L I M U N E Y E]()