Stop the Bleed: Yemeni Civil War

Security Council (Day 1)

---

Considering the attendance of fresh MUNers, rules of procedure was carefully and thoroughly introduced by the Dias team. Consequent to it was the starter of the conference-roll call. With all countries present, the Dias team set the simple majority to 9, and the two-third majority to 10.

During the beginning of the conference, delegates were all eager to clarify their stances and their countries’ attitude toward one of the most tragic catastrophes in the 21st century, which was why general speakers’ list was quickly stuffed by speakers. The initial consensus formed soon after the opening speech in which delegates mentioned that providing humanitarian aids and declaring ceasefire could stop further casualties. Followed by a series of unmoderated caucuses, blocs had come to their embryonic form in the middle of the very first session.

The debate started to heat up during lunch break, and the discussion continued on the best solution for either world peace or countries’ interests. As the session proceeded, the house can be roughly divided into two blocs, one consisting of Belgium, Equatorial Guinea, and other countries, the other including the USA, China, etc. With the same intention, the main differences between both blocs were their approaches in keeping stability in Yemen. Being peace-loving countries, Belgium and Equatorial Guinea believed that the solution to the Yemeni Civil War should be based on the principle of only defensive weapons can be used while the USA was convinced that cutting military supply might not only do more damage but also lead to illegal weapon trafficking or even black market transactions.

Whether military actions should be taken into consideration was a hot topic throughout the day, and secondary speakers’ list was soon filled up by keen delegations due to the commencement of moderated caucus raised by Belgium to discuss military actions.

Quoting the delegate of the USA, “Peace talks are important but only for short term solutions, defensive weapon-selling is needed to avoid prolonging the Yemenis from suffering.” “Unequal force can only cause even more devastating damage,” said the delegate of China. As for the opposing concerns, quoted from Belgium, “Is it ethical to take advantage of Yemen’s situation to fight over each nation’s own values and interests? Citizens in Yemen are living hellish lives day after day due to the forces fighting for power in their countries. All nations present in this room has had events that resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths. Why bring this fate upon Yemen?”

As the discussion escalating, a sequence of moderated caucuses appeared regarding several crucial issues, such as the establishment of shelters and the safety zone. The set up of a demilitarized zone was strongly advised by China for internally displaced people and to alleviate conflicts. Nonetheless, concerns had been raised with regard to the possibility of the overwhelming number of refugees in the buffer zone and its effects.

At the last session of the day (Session 3), the definition of “defensive weapons” was the main concern raised among delegations. With Equatorial Guinea and South Africa expressed their worries toward harmful firearms, the delegate of Kuwait briefly clarified the definition soon after their statements. The moderated caucus ended with the speech of the delegate of France, in which he stated, “The delegate believes that the definition of defensive weapons is important but to talk about it for 15 minutes long is unnecessary since all weapons are deadly and weapons that are used to defense are defensive weapons.” Unfortunately, no general agreement had been made throughout the argument, however, progress made by all delegates cannot be denied.

The conference will proceed tomorrow with the main discussion of potential draft resolutions and ongoing debates.