What REALLY went down at the UNFPA council? Do they know what is within their power? Is a collaboration with UNSC in the works?
The UNFPA’s first council session was...less than fruitful. The session beginning off with many unsatisfactory ideas and speakers that went off-topic. Countries like Congo and South Sudan rambled on and on about their poverty and diseases, perhaps not realizing that UNFPA has a different focus.
As quoted from UNFPA’s official website, “UNFPA is the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency. Our mission is to deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled.” This immediately brought up the question of whether the delegates are focusing on the proper things. Many went off-topic, talking about post-conflict countries and going off tangent.
Certain countries, like Syria, did talk about women's health, rape, safe abortions and much more. The USA implored that it was necessary to ensure safe pregnancies, women's rights and eradicate gender-based violence which is in line with the Geneva convention. This aligns better with UNFPA’s mandate and mission as well. However, this still did nothing to steer the debate in the right direction. The main problem of the council session was when one delegate brought up the idea of “no-fly zones” which the majority of the other delegates latched onto. Although initially, some delegates such as Switzerland and Yemen questioned this decision, they were unfortunately eventually swayed too.
Heres the problem with this: UNFPA does not have the power to implement “no-fly zones”. Only UNSC does. UNFPA’s concern is healthcare in these areas of conflict, not the conflict itself, which is what some delegates were trying to tackle.
So then why did this idea come up and why was it entertained?
Perhaps our delegates have to brush up on their mandates. Or perhaps there is an idea of a collaboration with the UNSC. Either way, this idea is currently absolutely unfeasible and, to put it crudely, just seemed stupid to bring up. Even if one of our delegates had forgotten the mandate, it is surprising that none of the other delegates called them out on it.
Issues of no-fly zones were being talked about round and round in order to increase safety but the delegate of USA brought up that the whole of Yemen is a no-fly zone but there still have been many, many bombings and attacks due to religious conflict.
In the end, however, our delegates were able to round back to the main points in question, and the USA even managed to submit a working paper, which gained the approval of many. Perhaps in future council sessions, our delegates will continue going on the right track.
The UNFPA’s first council session was...less than fruitful. The session beginning off with many unsatisfactory ideas and speakers that went off-topic. Countries like Congo and South Sudan rambled on and on about their poverty and diseases, perhaps not realizing that UNFPA has a different focus.
As quoted from UNFPA’s official website, “UNFPA is the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency. Our mission is to deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled.” This immediately brought up the question of whether the delegates are focusing on the proper things. Many went off-topic, talking about post-conflict countries and going off tangent.
Certain countries, like Syria, did talk about women's health, rape, safe abortions and much more. The USA implored that it was necessary to ensure safe pregnancies, women's rights and eradicate gender-based violence which is in line with the Geneva convention. This aligns better with UNFPA’s mandate and mission as well. However, this still did nothing to steer the debate in the right direction. The main problem of the council session was when one delegate brought up the idea of “no-fly zones” which the majority of the other delegates latched onto. Although initially, some delegates such as Switzerland and Yemen questioned this decision, they were unfortunately eventually swayed too.
Heres the problem with this: UNFPA does not have the power to implement “no-fly zones”. Only UNSC does. UNFPA’s concern is healthcare in these areas of conflict, not the conflict itself, which is what some delegates were trying to tackle.
So then why did this idea come up and why was it entertained?
Perhaps our delegates have to brush up on their mandates. Or perhaps there is an idea of a collaboration with the UNSC. Either way, this idea is currently absolutely unfeasible and, to put it crudely, just seemed stupid to bring up. Even if one of our delegates had forgotten the mandate, it is surprising that none of the other delegates called them out on it.
Issues of no-fly zones were being talked about round and round in order to increase safety but the delegate of USA brought up that the whole of Yemen is a no-fly zone but there still have been many, many bombings and attacks due to religious conflict.
In the end, however, our delegates were able to round back to the main points in question, and the USA even managed to submit a working paper, which gained the approval of many. Perhaps in future council sessions, our delegates will continue going on the right track.
Comments
Post a Comment