UNFPA delegates have a skewed knowledge of their mandate - many raised points out of context
As the saying goes, ‘The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.’ The delegations of UNFPA have manifested this in an exemplary manner while the council was in session. Instead of discussing ways the member states could contribute to tackling the effects of famine, they were instead debating on the implementing of no-fly zones and safe zones within conflict areas.
UNFPA’s agenda for the first day was to discuss the pertinent issue of famine. In times of conflict, malnutrition is rife. This might lead to widespread communicable diseases and reproductive health risks. It is hence the UNFPA’s job to consider the impacts of food shortage in times of crisis and resolve them with landmark resolutions.
However, the delegate of Uganda led the entire council on a wild goose chase for nearly an hour. In his speech, he justified that the creation of safe zones would aid in the safe transportation of food rations and IOPs to areas affected by war.
Uganda’s speech triggered a fierce debate on the implementation of safe zones between several countries such as Cambodia and Iran. It eventually resulted in the delegate of Cambodia suggesting that Germany and South Sudan establish a no-fly zone.
What the delegates didn’t realise was that the UNFPA’s mandate does not permit it to establish safe or no-fly zones - only the UNSC can. Moreover, the arguments over the political impacts of neutral zones in areas of conflict did not address the issue of resolving and lessening the impacts of famine.
This clearly showed that the delegates lacked an understanding of the context of the situation, as well as the mandate of the council. While they continued on a more appropriate note in the next council session, their error cannot and should not be overlooked. With only five more council sessions left in SDYC, can they risk veering out of context in future debates?
As the saying goes, ‘The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.’ The delegations of UNFPA have manifested this in an exemplary manner while the council was in session. Instead of discussing ways the member states could contribute to tackling the effects of famine, they were instead debating on the implementing of no-fly zones and safe zones within conflict areas.
UNFPA’s agenda for the first day was to discuss the pertinent issue of famine. In times of conflict, malnutrition is rife. This might lead to widespread communicable diseases and reproductive health risks. It is hence the UNFPA’s job to consider the impacts of food shortage in times of crisis and resolve them with landmark resolutions.
However, the delegate of Uganda led the entire council on a wild goose chase for nearly an hour. In his speech, he justified that the creation of safe zones would aid in the safe transportation of food rations and IOPs to areas affected by war.
Uganda’s speech triggered a fierce debate on the implementation of safe zones between several countries such as Cambodia and Iran. It eventually resulted in the delegate of Cambodia suggesting that Germany and South Sudan establish a no-fly zone.
What the delegates didn’t realise was that the UNFPA’s mandate does not permit it to establish safe or no-fly zones - only the UNSC can. Moreover, the arguments over the political impacts of neutral zones in areas of conflict did not address the issue of resolving and lessening the impacts of famine.
This clearly showed that the delegates lacked an understanding of the context of the situation, as well as the mandate of the council. While they continued on a more appropriate note in the next council session, their error cannot and should not be overlooked. With only five more council sessions left in SDYC, can they risk veering out of context in future debates?
Comments
Post a Comment