What are you expecting out of Medimun, why did you apply?
What are you expecting out of Medimun, why did you apply?
HOW DO YOU CHOOSE YOUR OUTFITS FOR MEDIMUN, AND HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU TO DO SO?
“‘Okay so, it takes me no time because it’s been three MUN’s that I’ve been wearing the same outfit ”
~Panayiotis Constantinou GA1
“My suits are ready from before so it doesn’t take me that long to choose. But it does take me some time to choose my socks because I really do care about the design and colour of the socks, if it looks good. It just takes some time to find the right tie as well because that’s very important. Depends on the day as well. If I am debating that day then i will be wearing a red tie, because red is the colour of blood.”
~Togay Ata Gokalp GA2
Well it takes me quite a while because I have a lot of options at home since my mom is a lawyer. I just open her wardrobe and then open my wardrobe and i try to combine casual and formal clothes so that I don’t come off as too intimidating especially since I am a chair this year and there is a lot of new comers in the Gas but I also need to maintain a strictness to my clothing because it sets an example for the other delegates.
~Hande Aksoy GA2
“ It is indeed hard I must say as I never know what to wear! (every girl’s problem) For the first day of the conference, I chose my final outfit at 4am in the morning.
~Daniz Alasgarova GA3
“ I just have one suit so it’s not really hard, I just change the shirt and the tie and it looks really different.”
~Michalis Kasoulides GA3
“Everybody likes a good suit so I do spend time to find the right one, anything classy would do.”
~Christos Georgiades GA4
“ I just pick out randomly 5 min before I go to sleep”
~ Emily Wallerstom SCCC
“My mum picks out my clothes”
~Panagiota Yiallouri SCCC
“Usually it takes me less than 5 minutes. I just go to my dad’s wardrobe and choose of his latest outfit from his last business trip ,”
~Andreas Lordos SC
BY: Marilia Magnitis
The first day was a very productive as well as fun day for the SCCC.
The explanation and tips on lobbying from the chairs, although helpful and concise, seemed to be almost needless when the delegates got into it, as they were really confident, prepared and excited about it. Of course, the chairs continued going around to each and every delegate passing on tips, which can only arise from their experience, and the delegates took them into consideration and seemed to be respectful and diplomatic amongst themselves.
Everyone’s excitement was obvious when they moved on to the debating of a few clauses. They presented their accurate knowledge and were able to productively explore every viewpoint in a respectful manner. The discussion was heated as innovative and even controversial solutions were suggested, which were explained thoroughly and later on challenged through constructive points that had been raised. Everyone – highly passionate about the topic – sought for detail and considered both short- and long-term solutions and wasn’t afraid to ask for clarifications if needed. Thankfully, no one’s effort had gone unappreciated, and they could skilfully answer every point raised concisely, as well as judge whether an idea will be effective in each country or not, individually. The SCCC also managed to fit in a few jokes in this, none of which had overstepped any boundaries, leading to the chairs’ love confession to the delegates.
Undoubtedly, all of the gifted people in the SCCC are excited to continue working on their resolution, which will be one of the finest qualities. Everyone is preparing for the biggest day of MEDIMUN, Saturday, in which most of the debating took place.
BY: Marios Falekos and Stefanie Mannari
After the chairs took register, the delegates were allowed time to lobby, trying to influence each other and form allies. The delegates then began drafting their clauses. After the break, the delegates went to the conference’s opening ceremony where they listened to a guest speaker making a speech on climate change focusing on biodivsersity. The delegates were then given time to complete the final merging of their clauses and submit them, a task which created chaos in the room as they were all rushing and stressed.
The overall main topic was the climate refugee crisis. The delegates were handed the clauses and given 1 minute reading time. The first clause, submitted by Russia and supported by Venezuela, China, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria sought to provide protection, not only for refugees but also for internally displaced people, who are still not protected despite being in their own country. The clause suggested that countries producing the most CO2 emissions should be held most responsible for these refugees. The clause also supports that climate refugees should be treated similarly to regular refugees. The UK delegate spoke against the clause, disagreeing with the 3rd sub-clause, claiming it does not take into account the cultural implication when sending refugees to countries. The voting procedure led to the clause not passing.
The second clause, submitted by Venezuela and supported by China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria, proposed that due to climate change and global warming the Antarctic has been de-iced and that 14 million km2 of unused land could provide a safe environment for all refugees. The delegate claimed that temperatures are too low for many natural disasters to happen so the refugees will be safe. The delegate of France however said that the clause does not address the problem that many countries have claim over that land. The delegate of the UK asked how the procedure would be conducted logistically and the delegate of Bangladesh also emphasised on the chance of other natural disasters like blizzards common in areas if very low temperatures like Antarctica. The delegate of the USA then also pointed out that there have been in fact territorial claims over Antarctica in the past few years and then the delegate of Russia questioned who would govern such huge land with billions of people. The clause did not pass.
The third clause submitted by China and supported by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria proposed the creation of a hub in Antarctica for refugees. The USA delegate was not entirely against the clause, but was concerned about the things the clause lacks, such as the fact that only earthquakes are considered amongst the multiple natural disasters. The delegate of Venezuela then opposed that by saying that a hurricane requires temperatures over 26.5 degrees Celsius, something not common in areas like Antarctica. The delegate of China also answered saying how the clause does not dismiss the presence of any other potential environmental disasters, it just gives a solution as to how one of the natural disasters could be dealt with through the building’s architecture. The Bangladesh delegate then recommended an amendment for sub-clause b, to change the term solar energy to renewable energy, so wind energy and other types can be involved too. The amendment passed. Further, the delegate of Russia suggested another amendment, to change the Belt and Road Initiative to All member states that are willing to assist. The amendment passed leading to the entire clause to pass, by almost unanimous voting.
BY: Marilia Danae Patsalidou and Maria Stylianou
The day started with the delegates of each country stating out the actions that have been carried out by their countries for the situation in the Maldives, Yemen and Kashmir through their opening speeches. Afterwards they started lobbying and discussing their clause so they can support each other as allies. The debate of the day was focused on the situation of the Maldives. The debate began by the delegate of Kuwait stating the need for consistent contributions of nations towards the suggested implementations and the converging ideas that have been agreed in the Paris Agreement. His positions had not been accepted by the majority of the delegates and his clause was not accepted.
The floor was then given to the delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands who was so passionate about everything. His speech was really entertaining as all the delegates, even himself, were laughing by the way he was expressing his ideas and thoughts. Some delegates couldn’t hold their tears from laughing. The delegate of Russia went against the sub-clause expressed by the delegate of the Kingdom of Netherlands calling it ‘ineffective’, and ‘unrealistic’. His clause was not so convincing as the delegates of the Security Council and 9 delegates expressed their veto. The clause of Russian Federation was about the restoration and preservation of coral reefs by suggesting a serious act that can be carried out by Non-Governmental Organisations. The clause was accepted in a positive approach by the delegates. The clause presented by USA had some constructive ideas and practical solutions in order to address the issue that Maldives is facing. The majority of the participants found these ideas acceptable and the clause was passed successfully. The last clause for the day presented by France was addressing the need of the UN contribution by sponsoring various researches and acts in order to mitigate as much as possible the impact of rising sea levels. Supporting speech was addressed by UK’s delegate and following that clause was passed and thus we reached the conclusion of the day.
It was an overall fruitful debate, where all the delegates enjoyed their time, and were excited for the next day’s session.
BY: Hüseyin Mermercioğlu
The Historical Security Council started the first day with a Karaoke as an ice breaking activity and then moved on to a funny debate just before starting lobbying. The debate was over the topic “Does age matter in a relationship?”.
Lobbying started at 9:50. It is suggested that each combination of resolution should be consisted of 6-7 people.
As the lobbying session ended, the debate had officially began at 16:00. A reading time of one minute was given. The first clauses were submitted by the delegate of China and co-submitted by Syria and USSR. There weren’t any points of information in the house. The clauses passed by all the delegates. Suddenly, the chair’s timer went off and Baby Shark started ringing in Room 206.
The next response was submitted by Iran and co-submitted by Ukrainian SSR, China and Syrian Arab Republic. The closed debate began, and the delegate of Iran emphasized on the acute health effects. The delegate of Western Germany stated that these points were vague and that they didn’t address any reference to the nuclear disaster. The open debate procedure opened, and the delegate of China gave the first speech. Then, the next debate started.
A hand sanitizer was in demand in our committee after we returned from the break. The council moved on to other perambulatory clauses that were submitted by The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and co-submitted by China, Cuba, Iraq, Sweden and Ukrainian SSR.
A motion for a P5 was granted by the chairs. China started the conversation by stating that she wanted to vote against the amendment as the clause was very specific and that it’s not related to the amendment. The delegate of USSR insisted that the case was about what needs to be replaced and emphasized on the day of the diagnosis. It was seen as pointless. China responded to the situation by adding up the fact that people will have to relocate. On the other hand, the delegate of USA pointed out that he wanted to have a political strategy and decide his opinion by seeing how everyone votes.
The delegate of the USSR represented the P5 meeting. The delegate believes that this amendment didn’t refer to the clause thus he voted against it. China and USSR agreed on the use of the word “currently” in the clause. Delegate of Sweden was another speaker who was against this amendment. She stated that people will still continue to be affected after they’re moved. The word currently only refers to people in the present and doesn’t refer in the future. 3 votes in favor, 11 votes against and 2 abstentions the clause didn’t pass.
Open debate for the second amendment was submitted by the delegate of USSR. The delegate of South Africa gave her speech, she amended that this clause should’ve been more internationally inclusive. Motion of follow up was granted due to time restrictions. The motion of extension of POI’s were voted against. The amendment had the votes of 8 for, 4 against, 3 abstentions and the order passed.
The chairs were punished for their lateness, which was demanded by the delegate of China.
T he next clause was submitted by the People’s Republic of China and co-submitted by China, Iran, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian SSR. As the reading time elapsed, the closed debate begun with 10 minutes and the remaining would continue the next day. The delegate of China believed that a comprehensive report over what caused the Chernobyl disaster as it is given as only an accident. This publication of the report in many languages to reach out to as many people as possible. The delegate of Sweden stated that as well as the report is translated in many other languages, it should also be published in a simpler form to make it an easier way of communication and understanding. Delegate of China stated that the average person will probably not reach out to read these reports and they will be shared to the public through magazine and newspaper agencies. The delegate yielded the floor to the delegate of the USSR. The delegate of the USSR congratulated the delegate of China for her effort.
BY: Güzay Özverir
When the delegates first came into the room, they were clearly very excited to start working with one another. They felt passionate about the discussions that were going to take place soon enough. The chairs had a personal meeting and warmly greeted all the delegates. Then, they informed the delegates that they will be working in small groups, and the delegates then hurried to their places with a lot of eagerness and began working immediately. Once they decided their view on the discussion, they hastily started planning their resolution. The delegates then glanced through each resolution, one by one, deciding which clauses were the best to use within their joint work. Everyone felt encouraged to participate and contribute to the very intriguing topics.
After the last break of the day, the delegates were seated to the places dedicated for their countries. They were ready for intense debates! The debate of the day was topic 2: the regulation of cross border pollution. The delegate of Brazil started the debate with a fervent speech in favour of the topic, which was then followed by the delegate Bangladesh. The delegate of some of the countries did not reach to an agreement with the resolution. They congratulated the delegate of Nicaragua, who did not prepare a speech, but he courageously decided to make one right there on the stage. The delegate of Russia, Singapore and France made enthusiastic speeches against the resolution. Unfortunately, this resolution did not pass. Lastly, the chairs did some corrections on how the debate should be carry out and finished up for day 1 of MEDIMUN.
BY: Lara Tokar
The session began with the chairs announcing that there is a competition for those who chose the question on the climate induced migration. They will have the chance to send in their resolutions to be debated in the actual UN! Then, lobbying in groups of 7-8 began at exactly 9.30 am. The delegates needed to combine their resolutions and decide on a submitter and a co-submitter who would do speeches to present their final resolution.
Right after the coffee break at 11.30 the opening ceremony began where a speech about global warming and how our generation needs to take immediate action took place.
Upon returning the room at 12.25 and the roll call was complete, the delegates continued lobbying.
Later on, the chair of GA2 came in and a video about the competition was shown.
A problem with the microphone occurred and so everyone had to cover their ears for a little while. The chair of GA2 had to leave.
It was 1.48 pm and everything was in order, chairs were going around the room checking on everything and answering questions.
After the second coffee break, the President of the GA rushed into the room to see most of the house dancing to ‘We’re All in This Together’ from High School Musical as punishment for being late.
At exactly 4.30 a guest speaker, Emilia Strovolidou who is the public info officer in the UNHCR Office in Cyprus, came to highlight the global situation in terms of climate induced migration. She particularly emphasised that the delegates had to remember that there are people behind the figures.
An hour later, after the fruitful discussion with the speaker is concluded, the first debate began about the role of LGBTQI+ individuals in the military as the delegate of Mexico took the floor to read the first resolution.
At 5.45pm the time for the first debate elapsed and hence it was time for time against.
At exactly 6pm the first debate ended with sadly the resolution not being passed.
The first day ended with everyone excited for the next!
BY: Eleni Porotopapa
Roll call was taken of all the delegates at the very beginning. People that were absent during the workshop introduce themselves by telling their names, countries and a cool thing about them.
The first ice breaker challenge of the day was telling funny stories. Everyone had to write a funny story on a piece of paper, then scrunch it up in a “snowball” and throw it towards the chairs. The chairs randomly read a few funny stories out loud. The first story was about someone being stuck in an airport for 7 days! Another one got mugged at a club, another one rode a motorcycle with another person, only to find out after they stopped that the person that he was riding the motorcycle with wasn’t his father.
Lobbying started – talking with allies and people that you are doing the same topic with and then the aim was to merge their resolutions. The advice given by the chairs was to keep on adding on a base resolution, since everyone had a draft resolution, and then come up with a final resolution by the end of the day. People were divided into the 3 topics, and then they started forming allies. The first break lasted 20 minutes from 10:30 to 10:50. After the break ended, anyone that came late after break had to dance. The song was not playing so the chairs decided to sing the Birthday Song to Alexandra who had her birthday on Monday, since they could not think of any other songs. During the opening ceremony all delegates sat accordingly with their General Assembly.
When we came back to our room, the roll call was taken, once again, and then the delegates were free to continue lobbying. Lunch took place at 13:30 until 13:50. When the time came for the delegates to return to their GAs, whoever was late this time got the chance to dance to One Direction including the Chair, Ata. The Delegate of Armenia, Danae, sang Justin Bieber’s song “Baby” since she was over 20 minutes late. As soon as the entertainment segment finished, lobbying continued.
Debate begins at 16:00 pm with the chairs explaining all the rules of the debate procedure. They mentioned common phrases, motions, written communication, delivering speeches, etc. Questions were asked about the procedure and talks about confessions.
As soon as the second break finished from 16:30 to 16:50, the admin staff handed out all the resolutions to the delegates. A reading time of 3 minutes was set. 25 minutes against and 20 minutes for were set for the first debate, total of 45 minutes.
Delegate of DPRK talked first for the resolution on limiting the utilization of single use plastics in economic activities. 4 points of information were raised from the delegates representing Bulgaria, Brazil, Liberia and France. Delegate of DPRK answered the questions skilfully. Delegate of South Africa then takes the floor, in favour of the resolution. Points of information for this speech were made by Uruguay, Lebanon and Russia.
The delegate of Liberia wrote an amendment to support the resolution. Delegates of Brazil and DPRK asked points of information. The delegate of DPRK requested to talk against the amendment made by the delegate of Liberia. Points of information given by the delegate of Russia and Liberia. Time for this amendment had come, 34 delegates voted for this amendment. Additionally, a second amendment was stated by the delegate of Armenia. A point of information was asked by the delegate of Peru. No delegates wish to speak against this amendment. The delegate of DPRK prepared a short defence speech and no points of information were given due to time constraints. 33 delegates wished to vote for this amendment and therefore both amendments have passed successfully. 36 delegates voted for this resolution with the changes intact, and 12 voted against.
Finally, confessionals happened where everyone had to write a confession on a piece of paper and then throw it towards the chairs. Then these confessionals were read out loud in front of everyone. Some of them were funny, other sweet and others clearly written as a joke.
BY: Lucilia Demetriou
In GA1, we started off with the ground-breaking question, ‘umm what’s the Wi-Fi password?’. So, the conference began with a projected word document displaying this precious password. But before we rush into how the conference actually began, there is a lot to think about in the moments leading up to the beginning. First, everyone arrives looking immaculate, the politicians and lawyers of the future that will one day represent our generation are sitting in this room, chewing their pencils and chatting away.
Icebreakers create a friendly atmosphere, especially when they involve throwing paper at the Chairs. To start off, everyone had to share three things about themselves, one comment being ‘I ride horses not people’. Soon after, the delegates were encouraged to write a shocking experience on a piece of paper and then throw it at the chairs. You can imagine the chaos that followed.
Soon it is time for serious work to commence and, after Panayiotis accidentally projected his history coursework for everyone to see, the lobbying process begins.
Once lobbying was completed, the first debate took place. Its main aim was to decipher which song the late-coming delegates were to sing. The votes were unanimous and ‘What does the fox say’ was the clear winner. After that crucial problem was solved, it was time for the rest of the debates to begin.
Five minutes of reading time was offered to the delegates once the first resolution was presented. This was then followed by a speech given by the delegate of Palestine who then yielded the floor to the delegate of Mexico. The speech against, was given by the delegates of the UK, DPRK and France, respectively.
Votes for: 26
Votes against 17
Most repeated phrase: ‘Could the delegate please refrain from using personal pronouns?’ and ‘Big Yikes’ (courtesy of one of the Chairs, Anastasia Alexandrova Popova)