Breaking Down the Facts at The Historical General Assembly

Correspondents from The Boston Globe and The New York Times investigate – Photo by Reuters. 

Editorial: ANDREA MORANTE, The New York Times & SILVANA RODRIGUEZ, The Boston Globe

1956, Historical General Assembly — The connections between New York and Boston met today at Harvard National Model United Nations’ 2018  (HNMUN 2018) at the Historical General Assembly. Reporters from The New York Times and The Boston Globe through a Press Conference during the Third Committee Session, with the objective of debunking the various controversial actions that the committee’s member states had made so far, asked 5 questions meant to unveil both the underlying issues and the possible responses to those.

The HGA has been discussing the topic of “The Suez Canal Crisis” since last Thursday, and reporters have been able to inform its readership since the developing of Working Papers and the carrying on of rigorous discussions set off. As the programmes, initiatives, and international legislations are shaped by the various delegations in the Assembly, the number of civilian casualties, economic hamperings, and political instability increase.

The relevance that the Suez Canal Crisis plays on both the national and international sphere lay at the hand of the consolidation of the Western and the Soviet spheres of influence. Standing as one of the great landmarks of communications, the Suez Canal has its future currently placed under the fate of the General Assembly. The deployment of French, British, and Israeli troops in the Egyptian Suez Canal territory currently maintain the international community at unrest.

As updates have been communicated to the delegates, and the cooperation between member states have had an unexpected shifts in that have resulted in questionable formation of international policies. For instance, the lack of information regarding the unexpected collaboration between the Delegation of the United Kingdom and the Delegation of Egypt remained as an issue of mounting significance to international politics.

That is why, during the Press Corps Conference, our news reporters decided to take a strong stance on their questions and advocate for the principles of watchdog journalism. Three of the main questions directed to the delegates are available.

The Boston Globe: How realistic is it for Great Britain to be cooperating with the Egyptian government while simultaneously engaging in direct combat against it?

Delegation of Great Britain: In terms of what is realistic from a foreign policy perspective our plan, the “Steve Plan” is one that incorporates many economical, political and military contingency plans that will allow for the continuation of negotiations and peace talks despite the fact that there is some current hostility, now we have been very clear that we plan on having a unilateral withdrawal on the long term, but on the short term we must make sure we have political oversight to maintain economic stability in the region, specifically in the Suez.

The New York Times: What does Israel have to say to answer for the deaths of innocent civilians through its military operations?

Delegation of Israel : “We would first like to say that Egypt has our but not our regret, we are very sorry this had to happen, Israel has only asked to be treated as an equal by all the member here and to be recognized as an real state, Egypt has failed to do this and continue to push us and eventually we had to snap to protect our own sovereignty, interest and people. No one cried for the kids in israel when Egypt invaded our territory and killed our school children during the arab-israeli war, Thank you.”

Boston Globe: We would like to hear a representative from the non- aligned bloc to give its opinion of the Suez Canal management. Which are your proposals to give a peaceful solution towards these points.

Delegation of India: “So the main idea we aim to defend and we have to communicate throughout this committee is that we are going to stay neutral, that the Suez Canal Company belongs to Egypt and that is only responsible towards the Egyptian national law, while indeed the Suez Canal being an international waterway has some legal aspect as for example different international legislation towards the use and the principle of neutrality mostly we need to address the fact that the sovereignty of Egypt is about everything on this specific points. If we don’t take it into consideration and establish it as the base for any further negotiations and the construction of proposals, then we will  continue to violate what has brought us to this crisis, the violation of sovereignty of a country that has suffered from the same all stakes from countries as Great Britain and France. So mainly what the non aligned nations movement is trying to communicate to this committee is that we should respect sovereignty, that we should maintain the canal open, that we should respect the economic infrastructure that has been build, taking into consideration the shortage of the trait route that the Suez Canal has prepared towards the international market and we should continue to do so, Since it is the only way in which we will solve both these economic crisis and the violation of Egyptians sovereignty.”

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s