The aim of the forum is to suggest long term solutions to allow Ukraine to recover as well as possible. Reinstating Ukrainian sovereignty and stability are obviously priorities and two topics. Both are essential for a return to normalcy for both Ukraine’s population and the international community. As is the question of Ukrainian infrastructure, its rails, power, health and education systems all battered by the war and in need of support to allow any quality of life for citizens.
Another topic aims to protect the heritage of Ukraine: its cultural sites, its language, its ethnicities, and, above all, its identity. Perhaps not as obvious a necessity as the first two, identity and pride are integral to the nation’s recovery and uniting the war-torn country. It is especially necessary due to reports of Ukrainian children being taken by Russian forces to boarding schools to be Russian educated, a possible attempt at cultural erasure.
The forum is considerably smaller than most THIMUN committees, consisting of only 30 representatives. An additional difference is that it is primarily comprised of international organisations involved on the ground. While discussing preparation for the conference and debate representatives for Doctors Without Borders and UNFPA, discussed the differences in researching for this forum, stressing that a prominent difficulty is remaining up to date with your organisation’s position and role in the field, as well as what they are doing to fulfil that role. However, they emphasised that the purpose of the forum was to address that long term rather than the immediate and as such, research on the timeline and history of the conflict is just as, if not more important.
Certain states are also present and the Russian representative noted an emerging divide in the lobbying process. Russia and occasionally China are frequently clashing with countries generally considered to be “Western Powers” such as the US or UK and International Organisations. Whilst this conflict is unsurprising, it appears to be a source of frustration for all with the representative for Doctors Without Borders stating that,
“It is difficult to move forward in a committee like this.”
Although the dissent of two states may not appear to be a serious issue, consensus must be reached by the entire committee in order to pass clauses, which may also be tabled by chairs if faced with objection from representatives before being either passed and returned to the debate or failed due to further debate. As such, many feel that debate is moving very slowly and claim that resulting resolutions may be watered down and ineffective, particularly as they are not Security Council and can only make recommendations to member states.
However, the challenge presented by this new format forces delegates to collaborate in new ways, to work with those diametrically opposed to their cause, much as real delegates are forced to. Realistically, diplomacy is not without its tensions and obstacles as each country works with their own interests in mind. Learning to navigate this particular maze will provide representatives with great skill in debate, negotiation and problem solving, frustration aside.
Photo by Tan Aktan, edited by Onat Ayarman
