Following the Model United Nations (MUN) conference, valuable lessons and insights emerged:

Contrary to the formalities in front of the curtain, the true excitement often unfolds behind the scenes. Engaging with others, delegates step into distinct roles, revealing this interaction as one of the conference's most thrilling aspects. Post-closing luncheon, animated discussions fill a corner of the restaurant. Here, the chair shares reflections on the conference with delegates, offering guidance on speech skills. Questions like "What are you good at?" prompt delegates to acknowledge language challenges and express a commitment to improving their English abilities.

Post-closing luncheon, animated discussions fill a corner of the restaurant. Here, the chair shares reflections on the conference with delegates, offering guidance on speech skills. Questions like "What are you good at?" prompt delegates to acknowledge language challenges and express a commitment to improving their English abilities.

The chair's role is multifaceted. While projecting an intimidating image during the conference, outside this role, they are seasoned individuals with a wealth of experience. This dynamic reinforces that chairs are not solely defined by their formal positions. Engagement extends beyond formal sessions. Delegates continue discussions during breaks and after the conference, immersing themselves in the delegate role. They contemplate resolutions from the perspective of the countries they represent. As the conference concludes, the chair queries delegates on their learning experiences. Some respond affirmatively, while others remain silent. The chair, alongside the rapporteur, steps forward to offer practical skills and insights about the conference and the MUN mindset.

Although some delegates may not fully grasp their growth during the conference, it is certain that everyone has progressed through their speeches. A notable observation is that, in the General Assembly, all delegates find reporters more intimidating than chairs. In conclusion, Global Storm congratulates the award-winning delegates. Well done to all!

The United Nations emergency special session on the Suez Canal crisis has entered its fifth day today. In response to the military involvement of Britain and France and the humanitarian condemnation from the ICRC, discussions in the meeting are gradually shifting towards "whether to deploy military forces" and "ownership of shares in the Suez Canal Company."

On the third day of the conference, Israel made it clear from the outset that they would not agree to a ceasefire or compromise, a stark contrast to their initial attitude when they accepted the British and French proposals. Speculations of collusion with Britain and France seem to have faded away without explanation. Additionally, Israel strongly opposes the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt, emphasizing that they will not let their interests be compromised for the "peace" of other nations. The United States maintains its stance, condemning Israel as the country that initiated the attacks and deserving of censure.

The United States believes that both Israel and Britain/France should bear responsibility. Israel's initial shelling triggered a chain of events, leading to the Suez Canal crisis and subsequent military intervention by Britain and France, resulting in the canal's closure and significant global economic losses. While acknowledging the controversial nationalization of the Suez Canal, the immediate priority is to address the ongoing war in Egypt to ensure peace and security. Following the ICRC's humanitarian condemnation, discussions on how to respond have commenced. The United States and its allies are considering deploying the UNEF to maintain peace, ensuring the withdrawal of British, French, and Israeli forces and safeguarding the security of the Suez Canal. The UN Secretary-General has agreed to establish a UN command post and appoint limited representatives from the Security Council as members of a war supervision organization. While most countries see the dispatch of UNEF as a viable solution, some nations still consider using force to establish peace as a misguided approach.

In yesterday's working documents, led by Britain and France and joined by Australia and Israel, concerns about deploying UNEF were outlined. First, using force to counter conflicts and create peace is inherently contradictory. Second, sending troops would lead to greater casualties. Most importantly, this would violate Egypt's sovereignty. Indeed, deploying troops recklessly without careful consideration would severely harm world peace. However, these remarks, originating from Britain and France, reveal a true contradiction. The real infringement on another country's territory is currently being carried out by the trio of Britain, France, and Israel. When pressed to explain this contradiction, all three nations chose silence, refusing to respond. The U.S. representative even expressed resentment, stating, "They (Britain and France) just want to revive imperial colonialism!" From the beginning, Britain and France never truly considered peace, prioritizing their interests and causing harm to other nations' sovereignty. Such behavior is selfish and profoundly damaging to the world, underscoring the deep-rooted colonialist mentality of Britain and France.

When asked whether France truly loves "peace," the French representative gave an affirmative answer. However, when confronted with ICRC statements detailing the inhumane impact of the Anglo-French coalition on Egypt, questioning why, if they love peace, they have caused severe casualties, the French representative merely reiterated that they did not intend to harm civilians, targeting only military facilities for the sake of peace. Yet, evidence speaks louder than words, and the fact is that the Anglo-French incursion has already resulted in casualties. Even if they only target military structures, any impact on civilian facilities still constitutes significant harm to the population. Most importantly, no war is without harm. This is an absolute truth. Britain and France's unreasonable responses only highlight their ambitions.

When discussing the deployment of troops, many countries expressed their opinions without providing detailed explanations of specific actions. Most countries chose to cede their remaining time to Canada after expressing their thoughts. This trend puts Canada in a dilemma on the stage, often being asked to clarify its position after stating that it has no further comments. Canada maintains a neutral but unwavering position, consistently supporting the deployment of a large-scale military force to ensure peace at the Suez Canal. Perhaps based on its stable stance, Canada has gained the trust of many nations. However, such trust can sometimes become a burden. In this conference—a meeting that could change the world at any moment—Canada's position seems to act as a world buffer. When it needs to retain its own opinions, it relies on Canada to maintain the situation. This trend is worth continuing to monitor.

Britain and France proposed a plan to Egypt: Egypt would have control and 60% ownership of the Suez Canal, with Britain and France holding the remaining 20% each. However, Egypt did not accept this resolution. France decided to "compromise" by choosing to receive 20% of annual revenue. When Egypt rejected the proposal again, stating the need for sufficient funds to repair the canal, France "compromised" once more, allowing Egypt to delay payments for ten years before settling the accumulated revenue.

What does the approach of Britain and France represent? From initially wanting to control the Suez Canal and even going to war, they have now repeatedly conceded, seeking Egypt's agreement without pursuing ownership. This not only indicates that the British and French military intervention was not well thought out, making their goals easily mutable, but it also confirms the resentful statement made by the U.S. representative. The era of Britain and France, along with the old colonial empires, has fallen, and their relentless pursuit of interests, hoping to retain their former status, only makes the positions of these two nations more embarrassing.

Britain and France have lost their major voice on the international stage. Unlike the past glory of colonial empires, they can only compromise with other countries time and time again. Once they decide to withdraw their troops, from that moment on, the imperial dream of revitalizing colonialism through this war will be shattered.

Finally, when asked about whether the hatred between Egypt and Israel would end with the current resolution, the Egyptian representative gave a vague response. The course of the world is unpredictable, and what is an enemy today may be a friend tomorrow. Time will be the best solution, and it is hopeful that the situation in the Middle East may be alleviated through this conference. The majority of countries' disapproval of Britain and France also serves as the world's rejection of colonial imperialism.

The emergency special session is still ongoing, but decisions are getting closer. This publication will continue to monitor the developments of the conference. Please stay tuned for the next report.

In response to the issues arising from Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal, the United Nations had originally planned to convene a meeting for discussion. Unfortunately, the veto power exercised by the UK and France obstructed this process, preventing the issue from entering the regular General Assembly discussion. Consequently, the United Nations had no choice but to convene an Emergency Special Session. When the Security Council fails to reach a consensus on a particular issue, the General Assembly can convene an Emergency Special Session for deliberation within 24 hours. This Emergency Special Session marks the first of its kind since the establishment of the United Nations.

During the first day of the session, discussions primarily focused on a ceasefire in the Suez Canal. At this critical juncture, the UK and France issued an "ultimatum," stating that if the Egyptian military did not withdraw from the canal, they would deploy forces to safeguard its security. This move immediately sent shockwaves across the world. While the United States and Israel engaged in intense negotiations during the discussion phase, most countries opted for silence. Later, when Egypt and Israel confronted each other, Egypt, facing invasion, failed to gain the upper hand, with the Israeli representative relentlessly pressing. Negotiations continued, with the involvement of the Soviet Union. With most countries taking a stance against the UK and France, coupled with the initial passive discussions, the two nations issued the "ultimatum," highlighting their isolation on the diplomatic stage. Particularly notable was the wavering stance of the UK, with its representative oscillating between pursuing peace and seeking self-interest.

During the conference, when asked if France's intervention was motivated by financial concerns, the French affirmative response attracted attention. Later, they even stated that national interests could take precedence over peace. This raised concerns in the United States. In reality, Egypt's nationalization policy lacked thorough measures in handling shares, prompting the U.S. to plan further discussions on the sovereignty of the Suez Canal and the ownership of the canal company in the next day's meeting.

According to the Constantinople Agreement, the canal must be international. Egypt's nationalization, while flawed, could ensure the stability of canal sovereignty, preventing it from being divided among multiple countries. If the UK and France indeed decided to intervene militarily (as assumed the following day), it would mean disregarding world peace, and prioritizing their own interests selfishly. Egypt's government implemented nationalization to remove British and French influence from its territory. However, the intervention of the UK and France revealed their ambitions once again – another attempt to expand their colonial territories.

On the second day of the conference, the U.S. intended to continue discussions on the sovereignty of the Suez Canal based on the previous day's context. However, the entire venue was thrown into chaos: the UK and France declared war! They argued that the conference's progress was too slow, and discussions on the ceasefire agreement had not advanced, justifying their military intervention.

Even though Israel had already agreed to the ceasefire request, and Egypt seemed willing to consider it, they claimed their actions were for peace or security. France asserted that their military intervention aimed at regional peace and that airstrikes would only target military fortifications, avoiding harm to civilians.

However, this assertion was implausible. War inevitably results in casualties. France's statements revealed their cunning nature, placing their interests above all else and attempting to resurrect the image of their former colonial empire. The UK, on the other hand, displayed a guilty response when questioned about the reasons for military intervention. If the UK and France were truly intervening for their interests, then obedient Israel, agreeing to the proposal, could not escape suspicion of collusion.

On the second day of the session, Egypt's absence drew attention. In the previous day's meeting, the Egyptian representative appeared indecisive in the face of proposals from other countries, swaying like a puppet. At times, they believed a ceasefire was possible, while at other times, they thought everything could be left to France to handle. When questioned, their responses were evasive, going around in circles. While there is speculation that their absence was to discuss matters domestically, the specific reasons were not disclosed.

In this conference, an interesting phenomenon of the modern era emerged: Israel questioning the Egyptian representative, with the Soviet Union stepping in to provide answers. This perfectly illustrated Egypt's alignment with communist forces, possibly already under Soviet control.

Despite the lack of progress in the conference due to Egypt's absence and the outbreak of military intervention by the UK and France, developments on issues such as the sovereignty and operation of the Suez Canal gradually took shape. Turkey proposed establishing a new international maritime organization dedicated to overseeing the Suez Canal, gaining support from several countries in the assembly, including the United States. Perhaps future conferences will move in this direction.

The surprise attack by the UK and France caught the international community off guard. In the current era, vehemently expelling colonialism from the Earth, their actions seem out of place. The specific future developments remain uncertain, and we await the ongoing coverage of the Emergency Special Session by this newspaper.

Anonymous Comment