DISEC – Day 3

Disarmament and International Security Committee- Day 3

 IMG_8227The final day of the Disarmament and International Security Committee commences, and it’s only the beginning of the debate on regulating the use of unconventional weapons. There is large consensus between the countries that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (the three main categories of unconventional weapons) need to be kept out of the Middle East and away from terrorist organizations. Even countries from the Middle East such as Egypt and Iran agree on this point, and Israel consents on the one condition that all members of the United Nations finally recognize it as a country. As the debates pick up it is necessary for the UN to outline which countries are included in the Middle East and would therefore be affected by this nuclear weapon free zone. Israel is named as a country, but Argentina points out that the Pakistani government is allegedly in league with terrorists and Pakistani scientists have met with Al Qaeda. Because of this Argentina believes it is prudent to include Pakistan in the Middle East, ridding it of all nuclear weaponry if this idea is ever passed. Pakistan is still excluded from the treaty as a country in the Middle East.

The resolutions have begun to be drafted and we come up with three main papers by Russia, the United States of America, and Japan. All three outline ways to deplete the number of unconventional weapons worldwide as well as including a clause on a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. As discussions on ways to merge the papers make way, Egypt mentions how nuclear weapons can be used on or against terrorist organizations and not just against civilians. These weapons can be used for good he says; although many countries had doubts that dropping nuclear bombs on terrorist organizations would solve the problems at hand. The delegates take off for lunch, despite the efforts of Kazakhstan to force everyone to stay in the debate room forever for his own spiteful enjoyment.

DSC_2779After lunch the delegates manage to combine their working papers. There is a disturbance on the definition of unconventional weapons, because the current description is vague enough to include such weapons as firebombs, something that has seldom been considered unconventional. The debate pushes through and five amendments are added which include the creation of a panel of experts on unconventional weapons, voluntary reports on the current status of a country’s stock of weaponry, as well as additions to the preamble and edits to the resolution. After a long day the debate is voted to close and the resolution is passed with only two countries in opposition: Israel, because she was not recognized by all countries in the UN, and Syria, just to go against the US. After three long days the delegates of DISEC have made great progress on passing two resolutions on major issues. The only hope is that progress will continue at next year’s conference.

Lucy Brock

Anna, Representative of Canada

Anna is from Philadelphia, PA in the United States of America. She is currently attending School Year Abroad France in Rennes. Her motivation for doing SPRIMUN was that she likes talking to people about politics and wants to study international relations at University. As for Canada’s goals, it wants only to promote peace and security, deplete stocks of weapons, and support cooperation between countries. In Anna’s opinion the debate’s going really well. The resolutions are being drafted quickly and people are working efficiently, playing the parts of their countries all the time. She says she loves Rennes; “it’s a very cute city, although the weather could be improved.” She is currently sponsoring a draft resolution to create a nuclear free zone in the Middle East.

1956 Security Council – Day 3

1956 Security Council – Day 3

DSC_3243We opened up this final day of debates for SPRIMUN 2015 with a draft resolution presented by the delegation of Australia. The delegations of Cuba and Belgium underlined that this draft resolution was a “fruit of consensus,” and that they were hopeful for all of the countries present to work in cooperation. Despite the general air of contentedness with the resolution, the delegation of the USSR still raised some doubts about certain working and preamble clauses, and word choice. Because the preamble clauses cannot be changed after the working paper has been submitted as a draft resolution, the USSR presented his new proper working paper that guarded the operational clauses, but modified the preamble ones for a more diplomatic feel.

The delegation of Belgium consistently showed himself as an excellent delegate with his ability to streamline the discussion and gently remind the delegations of the topic at hand. He made many times during the comity today, suggestions to clarify positions taken by the different member states, and to clarify difficult situations. Well done Belgium!

DSC_2592In response to the working paper submitted by the USSR, Australia submitted their working paper edited from the one before to the council. The USSR had problems with certain verbs in the preamble clauses. As well as those problems, the question was raised of whether or not to recognize and use the existing international consortium created in the previous London conference in August, even though the delegation of Egypt does not recognize such a coalition.

Stuck in a stalemate, the delegates broke for lunch.

Afterward, the historic Security Council had the surprise pleasure of a visit from the delegation for Egypt, who “Greatly appreciated our hard work, and the USSR’s concerns.” We opened up a session of questions and answers with him to get a feel for the government of Egypt’s position and motives, but ultimately were left in much the same situation as before. In a surprising and highly effective move, the delegations of Australia, Peru, and the USSR submitted a joint amendment to one of the clauses, killing two birds with one stone and winning the favors of the council. The resolution was put to vote, and passed, with flying colors! Because of our hard work, this council was done much earlier than the rest, and so we began an unmodified caucus to discuss other topics that we could discuss. Before the closing of the session we even managed to squeeze through another resolution in an unprecedented show of cooperation and speed, a, shall we say, modernization of the name of the comity DISEC, and gleefully reported the name change before the very same comity. Thank you for your hard work delegates of the Historic Security Council! And thank you for such a great experience of reporting news live with you all!

Kaitlyn TiceDSC_2915

General Assembly – Day 3

General Assembly –  Day 3


The last day opened with the delegation of Australia ready to present his draft resolution. Canada quickly proposed an amendment that addressed issues on gender equality, extreme poverty, and protection of refugees. There was also another amendment proposed by the delegation of Chad. This amendment stressed the importance of food security. After this amendment, the chair advised delegates to close the debate to continue on to voting procedure. But of course, delegates needed to present more amendments. Saudi Arabia proposed an amendment to replaced anti-discrimination with enforcement of basic rights. But unfortunately that amendment failed. After that the chair advised once more to close debate, delegates complied. Delegates then voted on the draft resolution, and it passed!

Finally, delegates were able to move on to the second topic of the conference: Promoting Peace and Security Cooperation in Central Africa. The Republic of Central Africa was the first to open in the general speaker’s list. The main request of the delegate who represented the Republic of Central Africa was to get help and aid from the international community. Many delegates expressed that the root of the problem was with rebel and terrorist groups in Central Africa. The delegation of France explained that efforts had already been taken to fix the problem by sending troops. But there were many countries that did not respond well to military action. The delegation of Cameroon saw it fit to make short and long-term solutions that would help the root of the problem. Malaysia was in agreement only if the short-term solutions could be translated into long-term ones. Therefore, delegates voted on a moderated caucus to discuss the protection of civilians. Countries like the United Kingdom and Paraguay not like the idea of military involvement because it would hurt local citizens. Australia also saw it fit to bring up that majority of the civilians are refugees. Malaysia wanted to make sure that the international community as a whole (The United Nations) chipped in to the cause of defeating groups such as Boko-Haram and Séléka in Central Africa (Boko-Haram and Séléka are two major terrorist groups in Central Africa). To come up with solutions delegates voted on an un-moderated caucus.

DSC_3027From that un-moderated caucus, the delegate from Bolivia was able to present the first working paper on this topic. This working paper focused on the protection of terrorism through finances. But many countries were concerned that the finances would end up in the wrong hands. Which was a major concern from the delegation of Central Africa because civilians would remain unprotected. Also, in the past, the root of the problem was wrongful funding and most of that money came from western countries. So delegates voted on another un-moderated caucus.

DSC_3378From the second un-moderated caucus another working paper was introduced. This working paper included financing for civilians, improved living spaces for refugees, the use of DISEC to help with military if need be. This working paper also inspired a resolution. The first draft resolution was presented by Australia. But delegates quickly dismissed it. Subsequently, Canada presented a working paper. This working paper with help from Malaysia, would add “actors” in the area such as the African Union. The internationally community would contribute food, water, and aid for education. The working paper also said that if terrorism became too extreme, the United Nations’ Security Council would intervene. There would also be shared intelligence from country to country. In my opinion, this seemed like a perfect working paper, but giving the time restraints, delegates were not able to create a second resolution.

All and all, the countries that represented the General Assembly at SPRIMUN 2015 worked very hard to come up with precise solutions to solve worldwide problems. By observing, I can report to you that the students who represented SPRIMUN 2015 will be the leaders of tomorrow. #SPRIMUN2015

Corinth Jackson

General Assembly – Day 2

General Assembly – Day 2

DSC_2154Given the results of day 1, day 2 kicked off with a big bang! Delegates were ready to get to work. They continued on the topic of “Setting Up the Post 2015 Development Agenda”. The chair opened the floor to a general speaker’s list but the delegate from Australia, quickly rose to the plate and motioned to have a 10-minute caucus to discuss specific problems of the development. Australia stressed the importance of coming up with goals that would meet the needs of citizens and countries. The delegation of Egypt wanted to stressed that there were more pressing issues like social and environmental change. Japan was in agreement and was even willing to develop a water turbine program. Japan urged all countries to take part of this program. Delegates then motion for an un-moderated caucus to discuss ways of solving some of these pressing matters. From that un-moderated caucus the delegation of Australia was able to present a working paper.

DSC_1696This working paper included concerns of food security, economic development, and concerns of general principles. In responds to this working paper, representatives of other countries quickly agreed or disagreed. Japan was deeply concern that the subject of food security was too vague. The delegation of Italy expressed concerns about the access to clean drinking water. The delegate was disturbed by it’s absence within the working paper given that it is a human right. So, delegates motioned for another un-moderated caucus to present another working paper.

Working paper #2 was presented by Brazil. This working paper was very similar to the previous one, but addressed the concerns of other countries that previously had problems with working paper #1. Although, many delegations were able to agree with working paper #2, there were still some countries that were just not satisfied. The matter of terrorism became a major concerned for countries. The delegation of Saudi Arabia stressed that terror conflict was not addressed in the working paper. Thus, delegates return to another round of an un-moderated caucus.

From this un-moderated caucus, delegates were able to produce a third working paper. Given the results of working paper #3, delegates were ready to start a resolution. So they returned to another un-moderated caucus to form one.

The delegation of Australia presented and reviewed the first draft resolution of the General Assembly. Although the draft resolution was well executed, delegates swiftly found ways to perfect the resolution and day 2 ended with amendments to the resolution. I hope delegates are able to pass a resolution on day 3.


During the un-moderated caucus, I was lucky enough to speak with the chair of the General Assembly, Manon Lainé Silas. Manon is currently a student at Sciences Po Rennes and is majoring in public affaires. Someday, she hopes to represent the country of France on an international level. Given that this was her first year of being a chair, I have to say she is very good at it! I ask her which positioned she enjoyed more, hosting or participating? She expressed that the two felt completely different. She conveyed that hosting is nice but it can also be frustrating because she cannot offer her opinion on a topic that’s being discussed. I wish Manon all the best on her journey to the international level.

DSC_1707After the conference I had the chance to speak with the delegate from Australia, Benjamin Alford. He is also a student at Sciences Po Rennes but he is in his second year. He was pleased with the way things were going within the General Assembly but hopes that the resolution he presented on the behalf of the delegation of Australia will go through on day 3.

Corinth Jackson

DISEC – Day 2

The Disarmament and International Security Committee – Day 2

DSC_1691The debate on the prevention of an arms race in space continues at the Hôtel de Courcy in Rennes. China quickly gets the ball rolling with a ten minute moderated caucus to discuss a legally binding treaty for an international space agency that would allow countries to share information on their current presence in outer space as well as check up on what other nations have been up to in their national space agencies. Although Russia agrees with China that there should be a legally binding contract, the United States of America makes it very clear that with their space presence, which is arguably one of the most advanced and expansive in the world, they would never participate in a legally binding treaty. Japan also raises the idea that a non-legally binding treaty might restore trust between nations, which has been an important goal for all during these proceedings.

After a fifteen-minute unmoderated caucus there are two papers presented on the guidelines of an international space agency. Paper 1.1 (sponsored by China, Russia, and India) only differs slightly from Paper 2.1 (sponsored by Japan, the United Kingdom, and the USA). The main discrepancies are where to include a clause on creating a Code of Conduct, whether or not to organize an authority capable of settling disputes in this space agency, and whether or not the treaty should be obligatory or not. Throughout the course of the day the two teams as well as all the other nations debate over and work together to create a new and improved resolution. The representative of the United States of America said how pleased she was that people were collaborating and trying to find common ground. In her experience there are usually two teams working against each other to get their resolutions passed instead of trying to find points that everyone can agree on.

The resolution is finally drafted, printed and distributed, and amendments to the resolution on the regulation of space warfare start flooding in. First off is Amendment 1, proposed by Argentina, who suggests the removal of a statement in Clause 4, which says, “Each State is free to determine its level of participation in the agency.” In the opinion of Argentina, who is supported by Sweden, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria, this resolution is useless if participation in the agency is optional. However according to Israel, Russia, China, and Japan this statement promotes trust between nations. They believe that working with other countries and having access to any voluntarily shared information is incentive enough to be a large part of the agency. Israel, Russia, China, and Japan believe that countries would feel more comfortable divulging their intelligence if it was not required of them. After a heated debate on the topic the first amendment ultimately fails.

After this, four other amendments are easily passed, all adding clauses to the resolution on international space agency standards, the addition of a group of legal advisors for an international Code of Conduct, definitions of militarization and weaponization, as well as voluntary inspections of national space agencies. By the end of the day all delegates are ready for a verdict and when put to a vote the debate is closed and the resolution is passed with nine of twenty-seven delegates against. The end of the day is punctuated with a rousing and surprising speech from Russia on why he voted against the amendment he worked so hard to construct. It was his objective, as he declared, to make history today and this resolution, despite being passed, did not meet his monumental expectations.

Tomorrow we begin the topic of the use of unconventional weapons, and there are already strong opinions forming on the subject of nuclear and chemical warfare.

Lucy Brock


Tatia, Representative of Brazil and Elene, Representative of Mexico

Both girls come from Georgia and attend the Free University of Tbilisi in Tbilisi, the capitol of Georgia. Their interest in attending SPRIMUN was to gain a professional experience as well as meet new people and work internationally. So far both countries think that the negotiations have been going pretty fast and that the debate is very lively. As for the city of Rennes they quite liked seeing city hall and Parc du Thabor.

Teona, Representative of Italy

Teona also comes from Georgia and attends the State University of Tbilisi. Her motivation for joining this MUN conference was to meet new people who have some qualifications and opinions on politics. Teona says that a lot of people here want to be future leaders, so it’s nice to be around people who are so educated on their topics. She is thoroughly enjoying Rennes and is currently working on drafting a resolution with South Africa, France, Germany, and Russia.

Zacharie, Representative of Iran

Zacharie is from Normandy but goes to Sciences Po Rennes. He did an MUN conference in Scotland and liked it so much that he decided to participate in SPRIMUN as well. Iran’s objectives for this committee are to avoid pissing off other countries and to agree on a voluntary basis for participation in the international space agency that is currently being discussed. Zacharie says that the debates were a little slow yesterday, April 1st, but that now things are picking up and we should be able to pass a resolution by this afternoon. In his opinion, Rennes is a great city of a perfect size that is full of students, so a wonderful place to study. He is currently working on merging the two resolutions that have been put forth.

Marie, Representative of Israel

Marie is from France and attends Sciences Po Rennes. She has done several MUNs and says that she loves the theatrical element of the conferences. It’s a merging of acting and politics, two subjects that Marie greatly enjoys. Furthermore she gets to learn about other countries. Israel’s goal in the conference is to stay independent and keep everything voluntary for the countries. She says she would’ve preferred to start the debates with topic two on the subject of unconventional weapons, instead of topic one which concerns the prevention of an arms race in space, but Marie still thinks the discussions are doing well and moving along. As for Rennes, Marie loves the city and also thinks it’s a perfect size. She too is working on merging the two presented resolutions.

Paul, Representative of Syria

Paul is from Nantes, but attends Sciences Po Rennes. He participated in PragueMUN earlier this year and thought it was a lot of fun and a great experience so he decided to participate in SPRIMUN as well. Paul says that Syria’s main goal in this conference is to disturb the United States of America. For Paul topic two on unconventional weapons would have been more interesting because Syria does not have a space agency, which is the focus of topic one, but he says that things are moving along in the debates. He is not currently a part of a resolution because as he says nobody wants Syria on their team.

Doriane, Representative of the United States of America

Doriane is from France and also attends Sciences Po Rennes. She has always been interested in world issues and thinks that SPRIMUN is a perfect way to get comfortable with international relations. Doriane has only ever participated in one MUN before SPRIMUN in which she represented Chad, so she is very excited to be representing a more influential country like the USA this time. In this conference the USA encourages peace and regulation of weapons in space through the creation of an international treaty concerning outer space, but does not want a legally binding contract. Doriane thinks that the debates are going really well that everyone’s working together instead of against each other, which is encouraging to see. Doriane likes living in Rennes and also thinks the city has a great size and is perfect for students. She is currently a sponsor of the merged resolution.


1956 Security Council – Day 2

1956 Security Council – Day 2

DSC_1357We returned back to the General speakers list the first half of debates today, with the delegation of Peru reiterating the need for humanitarian aid in Hungary. A moderated caucus was called by the delegation of Australia to discuss the stabilization of the government in Hungary and the maintaining of this government after. Questions were raised in response; such as the kingdom of Belgium’s: Will such a delicate situation see these measures as an interference of foreign power? France and the United States of America wanted to know how to stabilize a government conditioned to the presence of soviet troops. During the caucus the chairs informed us, that if a delegation is absent and the voting procedure is called for, the absentee’s vote counts as an abstention, and thus their veto, if they have one, is null. Coincidence of all coincidences, we did happen to have a very powerful delegate missing from the morning debates! This announcement caused an admirable speed to the delegates’ motions, and the resolution that was passed, was, quite possibly one of the fastest passed resolutions at MUN. An unusual but obviously highly effective strategy, and quite a neat answer to the question of the USSR’s veto. Well-done delegates of the historic Security Council for your speed in coming together!

And thus, before even the coffee break we were bustling along to the second topic on the agenda- the Suez Canal Crisis. The Canal is an extremely strategic and valuable trade route between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Until the canal was nationalized by the president Nesser, the canal management was overlooked by France and Great Britain. The nationalization of such a desirable asset provoked high tensions between the countries. Egypt was then invaded by Israel, and following close by on their heels, France and the United Kingdoms. Their goals were to regain western control of the Suez Canal, and to remove the Egyptian president from power.


We rejoin the 7th of November 1956. The delegations of France and the UK have agreed to withdraw their troops from Egypt’s sovereign territory, but the management of the canal is still a mystery. Two opposing groups form very quickly, each a triumvirate. France, the UK, and the kingdom of Belgium make up one side and the USSR, Yugoslavia, and the USA on the other. The general information as follows: the canal is an international waterway, but as it happens, directly in Egyptian territory. Such an invasion by foreign powers constitutes a violation of the sovereignty of the state of Egypt, as well as a violation of their right for self-determination as a people. This opinion is clearly felt by many of the delegates in the room. On the other side, the opinion that an international consortium should manage an international waterway, and that the reason Egypt was invaded was in response to the threat of Israel already present. So where do we go from all the confusing swirl of differing opinions? Little groups broke off to form their working papers, though one stood out from the rest. The delegations of Australia and of Belgium really stepped up to the plate with a working paper that combined not only their own solutions, but elements of the other working papers too, creating a final product that a majority would favor in vote. Very smart playing of the game. But, even with this general positive reaction, their were of course still things up for debate- namely, the preamble clauses. Certain delegations were angry that the USSR would not make concessions, but the USSR stood by their opinion that certain clauses implicated the government of Egypt in the fault of the crisis. We’ll be recommencing the debate tomorrow morning bright and early, and we’ll be there to report the results!


With a smaller comity like ours, every delegate put their voice in the subject. Even so, we welcome some more power players into the fold. The delegations of Cuba and Yugoslavia offered insightful commentary and questions that kept the rest on their toes!

Kaitlyn Tice

The delegation of Cuba
From: Rennes, France
School: Science Po de Rennes
Motivation for doing MUN: “It’s fun, and with a future career linked with international relations it’s good practice.”
How do you think the conference is going?: “Surprisingly good, it’s nice to see a conference going in an unusual way!”
How do you like Rennes: “Love it!”

The delegation of France:
From: Bordeaux, France
School: Science Po de Bordeaux
Motivation for doing MUN: “I already did it in the US studying abroad, and I like to meet new people, and it’s fun.”
How do you think the conference is going?: “Very well, France is happy with the resolution passed.”
How do you like Rennes: “It’s great, I haven’t seen much of it, but it’s pretty; except for the weather. I’m excited for the party, to see how it feels to live in Rennes.”

The delegation of Iran:
From: France
School: Science Po de Rennes
Motivation for doing MUN: “I was a member of the staff, and I wanted to get a better range of the past and current global crisis, and I was asked to participate as the delegate of Iran, so I wanted to show my knowledge.”
What are your goals for this conference?: “For Iran, to maintain an unknown position, continue to debate.”
How do you like Rennes?: “As much as I like rue de la soif, galette saucisses, and the people.”

General Assembly – Day 1

General Assembly – Day 1

DSC_0867Day 1 at SPRIMUN ended with big thumbs up for delegates. When the floor was opened to delegations, representatives quickly rose to the plate to stand for what their countries believed in. Delegates continued on to debate the topic of “Setting Up the Post-2015 Development Agenda”. Within that topic delegates spoke on pressing issues. The delegation of the Netherlands began with environment issues. The delegations of Canada and Thailand brought up issues of poverty.

sprimun_amyBut the delegation of the United Kingdom touched on both issues of sustainable growth and gender equality. Throughout the conference, the delegate of the United Kingdom was very vocal about the oppression of women in the world. The representative of the United Kingdom was so vocal; I was interested in her journey to SPRIMUN. Her name is Amy Longland and she is actually from the United Kingdom. But at the moment she is a student at Sciences Po Toulouse. The reason why her voice is so strong is because she’s majoring in international relations. She’s really enjoying the city of Rennes and is very excited to learn more about how the general assembly works. Given how day 1 ended, delegates seemed pretty excited to start day 2.

Corinth Jackson

DISEC – Day 1

The Disarmament and International Security Committee – Day 1

DSC_0870It’s the first day at the Science Po Rennes International Model United Nations at the Espace Ouest-France, and the Disarmament and International Security Committee has just finished the roll call. The two topics presented are preventing an arms race in outer space and regulating the use of unconventional weapons. The chair opens the floor to the delegates and Russia immediately motions to discuss the first topic: the arms race in space. Even this decision, which can never be avoided, only prolonged is met with dissent as Israel and Kazakhstan argue that it is more prudent to discuss the unconventional weapons topic first for no other reason than that they feel it is more important for the security of their respective states. However China believes the arms race in space is important and the motion to discuss the first topic first is passed with a clear majority.

There are a few general speakers on the topic. Japan, the United States of America, India, and the United Kingdoms are all in agreement that every nation should try to develop a space program and that there should be international and intercontinental negotiations to help form broad intellectual cooperation between countries. However there are a few discrepancies in their arguments. Japan mentions their concern for space waste, the USA does not want a binding contract, India is focused on development, which for them greatly involves outer space, and the UK thinks that everyone should have the right to use space for scientific and economic purposes. Only Iran has doubts of an international space program and is worried about certain countries, specifically the USA, and what secrets they might be keeping from other nations.

China motions for a ten-minute moderated caucus, which is passed. In this time most of the countries present seem to agree that an international space agency would be beneficial to everyone. Even Iran consents to this plan but stresses, as did many other countries, that transparency should be paramount if this agency is to exist. The Ukraine proposes that it should be obligatory for participating nations to share information on present and future projects that concern outer space, however there is much dissent on this idea from the USA, China and the UK. Japan extends the caucus for five minutes and puts forth the idea that the agency could be a neutral space for information. Algeria agrees that transparency is necessary for this to work, but that treaties like this are hard to enforce.

Another fifteen minute moderated caucus is passed in which Japan, Iran, and Korea push for transparency, but Israel, China, and Russia believe that countries should only have to share information with those countries that they choose to trust. Another ten-minute caucus begins in which India argues that not only should transparency be required, but also involvement should be mandatory to all nations who wish to enter outer space. The USA argues for an international code of conduct, but the details are unclear. Nevertheless every country that speaks but Israel agrees that there should be some sort of code of conduct. After a fifteen minute unmoderated caucus in which resolutions have begun to be drafted, there seem to be two sides to the debate that are both determined to work together. There are those countries like Russia who want a legally binding treaty, and those like the USA who believe that a non-binding contract is best to sustain peace. The session is ended with a twelve-minute caucus and will adjourn tomorrow to modify resolutions and continue the debate.

Lucy Brock

Carmellita, representative of South Africa. 
Carmellita attends Science Po Rennes and is from an island off the coast of Madagascar that is a French territory. She decided to do SPRIMUN to see how the negotiations work and get the idea of a real United Nations project; this is her first MUN. In her opinion the conference is going well however some countries are presenting more on their own ideas than on the opinions of their respective countries. Rennes is a beautiful city, she says, and she knows the streets quite well from her studies here. As for her goals, Carmellita aims to work on the international treaties and meet and discuss with other countries on the topics at hand.

1956 Security Council – Day 1

1956 Security Council – Day 1

DSC_1023The conference began immediately with a moderated caucus to debate on which topic to begin with, and to set the agenda. The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) began with a move to begin to debate the topic of the canal crisis, though they were quickly disputed by the delegation of the United Kingdom. The occupants quickly separated into two groups: those who would like to discuss the canal crisis, and those who would like to discuss Hungary. The delegations of Cuba and the USSR both spoke for the discussion of the Canal crisis, countered by the delegations of the United Kingdoms and Belgium against it. A motion was put to vote on the topic of the canal, and the majority of the delegates were against it. Because of this vote, we gathered here today to discuss the situation in Hungary, and find possible resolutions to solve the problem and appease tensions.

It’s 1956, and a nationwide revolt has broken out in Hungary against the government of the Hungarian’s People’s Republic and the heavy soviet presence in the country. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been in Hungary since the end of the Second World War, after they succeeded in driving out the Nazi forces in Eastern Europe. Thousands have organized in militias, and massive losses of life are being counted as the revolution degenerates into violence and bloodshed. Thousand of Hungarians are fleeing or being forced out of their homes as refugees. How can we help this humanitarian crisis? Through debating and working together.

In the debates today, some power players emerged from all the delegations. The delegations of the United Kingdoms, France, Belgium and Australia stepped up to the plate to deliver key points and evidence, as well as suggestions and zinging commentary. We even managed to squeeze in an interview with the delegation of Australia in the break between debates; catch it below this article.

Two un-moderated caucus’ were eventually called during the call for motions and points, and the delegations began to talk amongst themselves. We began to see the furnishing of two resolutions concerning the aid to Hungary and possible responses. Questions remained to be answered in the coming days of discussion.

  • Will the USSR be an obstacle with their veto?
  • What can we expect from the other delegations in regard to support or votes?
  • Where will the aid come from, and in what way?

We’ll be there to report it all to you as it happens!

Kaitlyn Tice

Interview with the delegation of Australia:

  1. Where are you from?
  1. What school did you come with?
    University of Nottingham
  1. What motivated you to do MUN?
    I’m in the UN society at my school, so there’s that, and I like it, and I study International Relations, so it’s the thing to do.
  1. What are some of your goals for this conference?
    Have fun, debate with the other delegations, practice the language
  1. How do you like Rennes?
    I like it, the city, and I had already visited it before.

Meet the 2014-2015 Team: Communication

Ayda Benslimane

Ayda is a fourth-year student in Sciences Po Rennes and is currently studying European and International relations. It is during a quite heated year in Istanbul, Turkey that she developed her interest for diplomacy, mainly in the Middle East but also in other parts of the world. During the summer, she also did an internship as a journalist for a newspaper specialized in the MENA area (Middle East and North Africa).

Ayda will be in charge of the communication for SPRIMUN this year, and she will try to reach as many people as possible to be part of this great event!
[Prés] Quentin

Fourth year student at Sciences Po Rennes, Quentin is majoring in International and European Affairs. Last year, he studied at the University of Macedonia (Thessaloniki, Greece), attending several courses of international relations and international law. He had the opportunity to participate in ThessisMUN 2013, representing Estonia at the North Atlantic Council.

Interested in international issues, and their management, he is in charge of the communication for the third edition of SPRIMUN, taking care of this website and social networks.