1. What explains the vote on the resolutions debated in the General Assembly? (Discuss the vote in each resolution separately and then generalize regarding patterns in the voting as a whole. Discuss at least two patterns in the voting. ) There are several factors that can be noted in the voting of member nations in the general assembly. If we take a look at aid issues such as the cancellation of third world debt, we see a large support coming from the international community. The same can be said for other areas that are clear cut as to where the publicly popular votes lie.
These include actions in the war on terror and drug trafficking which most countries view as one sided. The same can be said of environmental and peace-related resolutions such as those pertaining to nuclear proliferation and environmental standards. Most countries view these issues as “no brainers” when it comes to voting except for a select few who really have great stakes in voting against the majority. The more contentious issues lie in political disputes such as that between Palestine and Israel, or reformations in the Security Council.
These are contentious because they hit close to home where the sovereignty of the member nations are concerned. A lot of countries would rather Israel and Palestine simply discuss matters between themselves, opting for bilateral agreements between the two rather than U. N. action. This is because a lot of countries are conservative when it comes to dealing with disputes between other countries. They wouldn’t want any actions made by the Security Council to trickle down to their own affairs when the time comes. Also, there’s a very sticky situation when you talk about reforms in the Security Council.
Countries are very wary of any resolutions that might backfire on them so they take any changes to how the Security Council works in deep consideration before voting one way or the other. 2. Did your own position change during debate on any of the resolutions? Why or why not? For some of the issues, yes my vote did change. I was initially against any reforms made on the Security Council. I feared that any changes might affect the scope by which the Council could act and it might well affect the sovereignty of my country.
However, after it was discussed how the Security Council had handled the issue in Afghanistan and that in Iraq over the last few years, I realized that Security Council action has been inadequate largely because of the lack of collective power that can act for the benefit of everyone. The characterization of internal conflicts between its members also piqued my attention so much so that I was swayed towards a yes vote to the necessity of reforms in the Security Council. 3. Were the interests of your country furthered by the debates in your bloc and in the General Assembly? if so how? If not why not? Yes it was.
Malaysia has a growing economy an we are not afraid to grow even further in the coming years. However we are aware of the dangers of continuing industrialization and we do not want to exchange our environment for progress. And so we found the debate on environmental liability for corporations to be of prime importance. Thanks to the debate, a large number of voters were swayed to vote yes for the resolution. 4. What did you learn about multilateral diplomacy from the simulation? I learned that it is really difficult but at the same time enlightening to talk about different issues with different countries around the world.
It’s not enough to forward your ideals and interests, you also have to take into consideration the ideals and interests of other countries. Also, you have to be very sensitive to the issues that concern your neighbors, you shouldn’t merely vote for something because you think you’ll be better off with it, you have to see whether or not the countries around you will also benefit or would be further detrimented. Lastly, I understood the gravity of the decisions that these people make in deciding for their subordinates. It’s really not the easiest job in the world, but someone has to do it. 5.
What are the lengths and weaknesses of multilateral diplomacy as an instrument of influence? Multilateral diplomacy allows for a wide spectrum of ideas to be shared and appreciated. It puts everyone in everyone else’s shoes and makes them come to terms with a world perspective on issues. The downside is that since you have so many ideas, it would usually take a longer time for people to come to terms. Still, that’s a fair exchange if what you want at the end of the day is the best thought of decision for everyone. 6. Can multi lateral diplomacy help limited or prevent conflict or war? If so, how?
If not, why not? Yes. This is because you won’t necessarily have to go to war if another country does something bad to you. You can take the matter up to a multilateral level and spur discussion that could find for more peaceful options. Furthermore, you can get the sympathy of other countries towards your cause which can make them reprimand the offending party as a bloc. Since they don’t want war themselves, diplomatic means can come up with reparation agreements that would be for the best of everyone concerned.
Sources: Osborne, Milton (2000). Southeast Asia: An Introductory History. Allen & Unwin. ISBN