Collaboration and Composition: Coming Up With Working Papers

Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (Day 2)

With the roll call implying 47 delegates present, the sessions on day two started. As soon as the session began, an unmoderated caucus was raised by the delegation of Azerbaijan, dropping further discussions on the two working papers presented by the blocs of China and USA respectively.

A moderated caucus discussing the working paper 1.2, drafted by the bloc of China, proceeded. The delegation of Thailand and Turkey continually pointed out several unclear clauses in the working paper. “What is the definition for extremism, separatism, and terrorisms?” questioned Turkey. Consequently, the delegation of Russian Federation, one of the sponsors in WP 1.2, came to the podium to explain. “More details will be added to the potential Draft Resolution,” said the delegation of Russian Federation. "More attention should be put into human rights aside from terrorism,” the delegation of Switzerland complemented. Eventually, the delegation of Turkey concluded, “WP 1.2 focuses mostly on ways to combat terrorism, but WP 1.1 focuses more on the inspections to make sure that the controversies are clear.” The focal point of the debate then shifted to the more precise definitions for words with controversies in both of the Working Papers, such as terrorism, vocational training center, and educations about Han Culture.

Next, another moderated caucus raised by Turkey was focused on discussions about WP1.1, which was proposed by the bloc of the USA. “NGOs should be more appropriate for investigation than UN officials,” the delegation of Spain claimed. “The method of investigation actually sounds more like a kind of monitoring”, stated the delegation of Malaysia. “International sanctions mentioned in the clause may not be neutral enough,” according to China. The delegation of Serbia also reminded that some clauses in WP 1.1 seemed to be unfeasible since they surpassed the authority SOCHUM had. Finally, the delegation of the USA replied to questions from opponents and raised several rhetorical questions to end this moderated caucus.

Then the topic of discussions shifted to the concern of whether China’s past restrictions on Xinjiang were rational measures. Both sides proposed pieces of evidence to show that their bloc was neutral and to further support their claims.

At the beginning of session 5, the delegation of Thailand raised a moderated caucus to explain the stance of the neutral bloc, consisted of countries in neither the blocs led by China or the USA . To begin with, the delegation of Thailand pointed out that their bloc did not intend to oppose to China but instead support the idea that investigations should be implemented, and further encouraged the investigations to be done by NGOs. Afterward, delegations from the two major blocs--the bloc of China and the bloc of the USA-- started to persuade countries in the neutral bloc to stand in a clearer position and join either one of the larger blocs. Both Russian Federation and China stated their welcome and aspiration to cooperate during the speech of the general speakers' list.

Nevertheless, some delegations in the neutral bloc instantly showed their opposition to this proposal. The delegation of Indonesia affirmed that ”Our bloc considers human rights to be superior to economic benefits, and would not prefer to be pinned down by either the USA or China. ” As for the response to confusions of the USA, questioning why the neutral bloc did not collaborate with them since they had resembling stances, the delegation of Indonesia replied that they were suspicious of the reliability of the USA. The delegation of Serbia also declared that the neutral bloc was apt to not only protecting human rights but also safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territory integrity , and even appealed for developing a society with diverse cultures, which contradicted to the stance of the USA.

Finally, three potential Draft Resolutions were introduced to the House respectively. More information about the committee will be provided tomorrow.