CRISIS - Clementine Y., Ian L. 

The delegates began the conference by giving their opening speeches. Following the opening speeches were debates about the topic of the animal-borne diseases turned to pandemics. All delegates were almost always respectful to each other in their debates. Some debates, however, raised a bit of tension. The Chairs in the committee did a fantastic job at maintaining order, such as when they reminded delegates to not do cross talk during the speeches, or when they told the delegate of India to use proper language and not use terms like “bro”. They also told the delegates numerous times, “laughing is not in order”. 
Tensions arose in the committee during a crisis update. The update told us how India has a kill on site (KOS) procedure and killed innocent immigrants. Five of the delegates were allowed to debate against India. It became a bit heated when one of the delegates called India a “Hitler reincarnation” and when they all yelled at once at the delegate of India. However, the chair managed this very well and it did not get any further than that. 
During the debates, there were some disagreements but the delegates all remained respectful.
In one particular Public Directive, Chile found a cure to the crisis of the pandemic and asked for 5 million rupees to help fund cancer and autism research when countries wanted to share the benefits of Chile’s cure. In response, the delegate of PRC said, “Why is China required to take these ridiculous vaccines?” 
Throughout the debates, some had many questions but also obeyed the chairs when they told them to sit down because of the time limit.
The situation of the crisis, the pandemic, got worse as the debate continued, but the delegates all remained calm. 
Overall, it was an extremely respectful but interesting debate, with delegates cracking up to each other’s jokes and speeches. 

 

 

 

ECOSOC - Kaleb Z., Anton S.

At the start of day 1, the TAS ECOSOC chairs introduced what they were going to do and then the delegates presented their opening speeches about the issues. But one problem that happened was that almost everyone in ECOSOC was doing the first topic, which was “The question of addressing the unprecedented global challenge of food insecurity and the risk of famine” so the TAS chairs had to get some people to switch to the second topic, which was “The question of the disproportionate protection risks, needs, and challenges of women and children during humanitarian emergencies”. After the opening speeches, they started lobbying and typing their speeches in different groups; they started commenting on each other's speeches and that's what they did before lunch. Everyone was really silent and only the chairs were speaking.
In ECOSOC room 2, everyone was going back to work and trying to tidy themselves up, then went back to typing their resolutions. In ECOSOC room 1, a group of high school students that were in the Haran North Korea club came in and did a presentation on North Korea. They wanted the delegates to pay more attention to the people that were trying to escape from North Korea instead of stuff like Kim Jong Un. The high school students offered some ideas the delegates could do to help those people and the delegates played Blooket on that topic. Everyone was well behaved and were generally silent.
Back in ECOSOC 1, the debate is happening and they are arguing about the issue, they use different words to explain their amendment. Each delegate presents an amendment and a lot of the amendments are similar, then any delegate can ask questions about the amendment presented, and then the delegate responds to the delegate that asked the question, then the delegate goes down from the stadium and someone else can go on. After a few people speak, the delegates vote if they approve, disapprove, or abstain from the amendment. There weren’t any heated debates and usually there’s no questions asked to the delegates presenting the amendment. Every delegate had a strong and firm voice but their voices weren’t screaming.
In Ecosoc 2, their debate about issues are being reasonably counter argued and respectfully disagreed by, almost all the amendments have something to be agreed by, too. Most of the time, it was the same delegates speaking, whether it was the speech or counterargument.
The next day, ECOSOC 1 and ECOSOC 2 both started off with debating. All the delegates were well mannered. They spoke in turn, they spoke firmly and strongly, but not loudly, and they were being respectful to their fellow delegates and chairs. There were also people who came in who were selling lottery tickets and ECOSOC 1 spent 10,000 NTD, while ECOSOC 2 spent 5,000 NTD. The debate was very formal, as well as consistent and repetitive because everyone was well behaved which allowed this debate to go smoothly and according to plan. The debating continued and went smoothly all the way to the end of the day.
 

​

​

G77 - Sharlene C, Charlize C.

DAY 1
At the beginning, Chairs were talking about debating rules and reminders for the speeches and time limits. A few minutes later, the first group lined up to talk on the podium. They talked about rising sea levels, flooding, and how the flood makes most things go underwater. And to help our environment, companies have to pay the damages that they make, and citizens have to face the flood. Then, the head chair hit the hammer, which meant that time was up. After that, the second group came for their turn.
The group after that talked about SDG 3 and 4 and how it relates to the 2 topics of G77.(SDG 3: Good health and well-being SDG 4: Quality Education)
Then, the third group continued by talking about Columbia's issues, Cambodia's issue, and how we should put matters into our own hands. After a while, the fourth group lined up for their speeches, and everyone looked ready. 
When the fourth group finished, the fifth group came and talked about the dangers that are happening in Vietnam and Venezuela. They said that the misunderstandings in both countries can affect other countries as well. Then, a delegate went up and talked about what is happening in Sandia.
After he was done talking, the head chair told all delegates to split into 2 groups for the 2 topics- rising sea level & developing a safe digital community for kids. Most of the delegates chose to write about rising sea levels, so they had to split into smaller groups. After that, they started writing their resolutions together, and the head chairs were testing the microphones for the delegates.
Then, we went to lunch, and when we came back, the head chair was saying that if you had a small voice, you could use the microphones, and that the delegates had to turn off their digital devices when they started.
First, they started to do the Line by line review. After the head chair announced the paragraphs that would be changed,many delegates’ ideas had been replaced due to other delegates' responses. And they started to retain, delete, or strike on other delegates’ ideas. All the tension made the atmosphere feel really tense and so most people were really serious. During the line by line review, the delegates from Cuba, Chile and South Africa were the most active and gave the most suggestions and requests. Even though they talked about a LOT during the debate, the key thing they talked about was preventing misinformation.
On the 2nd day, the delegates started talking about which choice they were leaning towards. Some of the delegates were laughing at each other because of their claims, until the head chair said that it wasn’t allowed. Soon after, one of the delegates spoke about how the companies won’t get paid if we get the internet for free. Most of the other delegates stood up to either go against or with the idea of the delegate. Since most of the delegates had really reasonable reasons, it was really hard to go against them. 
After a while, there was a heated debate in clause 4, sub clauses d,e, and g. It made over 5 of the delegates stand up and debate about whether wifi should be free or not, especially Mexico and Botswana, who wanted cheaper prices rather than free internet. After the tension cooled, they started talking about import taxes, which were taxes that charged things that are imported into a country from somewhere else. And afterwards, they talked about Ethiopia’s amendment, which was to “have AI detectors remove deep fakes.” Mexico thought that it was impossible, because he thinks that it's impossible to delete your digital footprints, which not ALL committees agreed with. Though, they still moved on and talked about education and digital literacy, which was something most delegates wanted to strike on. Then, 2 people walked in to ask for donations and raffle tickets. Most delegates donated 2 or 3 things and 1 of the delegates even gave 1,000 NT just to buy raffle tickets!!
A while later, South Africa talked about developing a safe digital community and ALL of the delegates seemed to agree and clapped!

 

 

 

GA1: DISEC - Ian S. 

The MUN conference started off  a little bit tense and very quiet. The delegates looked a bit bored and nervous. This was probably because it was some of their first MUN conferences and they were a little bit anxious, but as the day went on, the delegates became more confident and the committee room became more lively and engaging. During the entire day, the delegates were very mature and respectful. They didn’t raise their voice, and they admitted mistakes when necessary instead of trying to argue. They were very focused in the debate. They also answered and questioned respectfully and in a polite manner, and they gave their full attention to the speaker. The interactions between the Delegates were very polite and friendly, with lots of joking and laughter, making new friends during the conference. There was also a presentation about North Korea,  AI, booklet work, and they even had a raffle ticket buying event where if you spent 1000NT to earn a chair dare. This raffle event made everybody really excited and more energetic, so much so that somebody donated 2000 nt!  The delegates also brought Salt Collectiv items to donate to the needy. Altogether, the conference was fast-paced, lighthearted as everybody was joking and making new friends and encouraging each other, everybody was working cooperatively, and the room was full of positivity.
The chair’s strong presence helped to maintain the order in the committee room. An example of where this was shown was when most of the delegates preferred the AI topic over the nuclear, the chairs helped to reorganize the groups equally. Even if the delegates didn’t want to comply, the chairs forcefully moved the delegates. Additionally, the chairs were really helpful, and assisted the delegates by correcting the delegates when they made a mistake, they checked in with the delegates to make sure that they knew what to do. The chairs were not only helpful to the delegates, they also helped each other. They corrected each other and they assisted each other when reading the amendment if they couldn’t see the words. The chairs also joked around with the delegates, creating an enjoyable atmosphere where the delegates could laugh and have fun while doing MUN, a usually serious event. I think that the chairs being so kind and lighthearted made some of the delegates more relaxed. 
The delegates looked more comfortable and confident during the second day as they had made some friends in MUN and they were not that nervous anymore as they realized it wasn’t as frightening as they had previously imagined it would be. To the extent that they were making jokes the entire time, such as “How many Points of information do you accept?”
“One million.” The entire committee burst into laughter. This moment reenergized the class and changed the atmosphere. Everybody was smiling and they continued to make jokes and laugh. But, that didn’t last very long, the delegates continued to interrupt the chair, make the same mistake that the chairs corrected,  and speak out at times where they shouldn’t have. Due to this, the chairs looked a little bit frustrated and slightly annoyed. But, eventually the mood shifted, everybody seemed engaged and enthusiastic, this became very evident when they answered questions.
As a whole, the committee was active, engaged, and had delegates and chairs always laughing with one another. 
 

​

 

GA3: SOCHUM - Hannah L., Zita H. 

The delegates are debating for and against a resolution about fake news on social media and disability seriously. Their voices are clear and sound professional, speaking in a monotone while looking at a script on their laptop as they talk. Chair is friendly yet formal, calling Italy, Kuwait and Portugal to speak. Italy talks about how removing barriers people with disabilities face is important to society and how they hope for a productive future. Portugal talks about how misinformation spreads faster than before and a collaborative solution is crucial, but all in all they are very serious and formal. Later on Russia stated that people face unfair treatment and 9% of their country’s citizens is disabled even though they have put significant efforts into it. They want to increase the awareness for disability and work with the other delegates to establish legal frameworks for disabled people. 
By the end of the debate, the side with Russia prevailed against Portugal, and countries further debated on whether or not misinformation is more important than disinformation and vice versa. Other countries decided which to join by aligning their goals to each of the respective countries.
The room is respectfully quiet as people are finalizing their resolutions and sending resolutions and amendments to smiling chairs. The chair states sternly that anyone who uses AI will face consequences. As the delegate of Indonesia finishes her resolution, everyone waits patiently. Finally, she steps onto the podium, words spill confidently from her lips. Rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories are growing threats to the government and the public, she states calmly, and calls for national frameworks to tackle misinformation. Responsible content, she says, begins with education. As she walks back to her seat with poise, the chair asks for any who agree with this amendment to speak. The United Kingdom instantly raises his placard, and the chair consents. He replaces Indonesia on the podium, confirming that investigation has been done on misinformation and the previous speaker is correct, therefore everyone should vote for this amendment. As the motion to vote grows among the delegates, the chair calls for voting procedure. Two pages trotted to the doors on each side of the room, and an overwhelming amount of placards raised for this amendment declares that it passes. 
After many amendments that passed, the United States ascended the podium, speaking about how individuals over 12 should get their own control over their social media, and children under 12 should have parent permission. As he continues, he restates that parents should own accounts under 12 and monitor children’s accounts. Afterwards, South Africa immediately raises her placard in objection and after the chair allows her speech she instantly replaces the United States on the podium. The House should not vote for this resolution, she says loudly and convincingly. Any children over 12 is not mature enough and children should be 18 and over to have their own social media accounts. How can you be so 
sure that children over 12 could be mature, she charges, their frontal lobes are not fully developed until 21. Also, she hollers, having parents running accounts is not specific enough and refrain from using first person pronouns on the amendments displayed on screen. As she concludes, South Africa states once again that only people over 18 should have an account. As she descends the podium, the chair calls for voting procedure. As the admin secured the doors, 4 placards raised in the amendment’s defense, 6 placards raised in objection, and 5 placards abstain. The chair slams down the gavel, and the amendment fails to pass. 
Not only was the committee heavily involved in debate, they also actively participated in our SDG activities. The head chair was very insistent on winning the shout out of most money spent on the SALT collective Raffle Tickets, By the end of yesterday, GA3 SOCHUM II only had 300nt worth  of raffle tickets. Fearing of losing, many passionate delegates opened their wallets and donated very much. Some people even donated a few thousand nt, which is around 60 usd. This shows that the team has very much built a team spirit.

 

 

 

GA4: SPECPOL - Jolie H., Queenie W.

At first, everyone was giving opening speeches, and everyone was respectfully listening as well. First, the chairs spoke, for their self introductions as well as discussing procedures. Then, it was the delegates' turn. All delegates had to line up, waiting for their turn to speak at the podium. It was very professional, with a few jokes thrown in here and there. 
   After the opening speeches, they moved on to explaining the rules on lobbying. Later on, they started lobbying. Lobbying was fruitful: delegates were evenly split between the two topics of addressing the impacts of forced relocation due to natural disasters and the question of transitioning small non-self-governing islands towards self-determination and independence free of exploitation. Due to a large committee, the chairs decided to split both topics into two separate groups, creating for resolution blocs altogether. Delegates were mostly on topic, but also connected and chatted with one another. During lobbying, the guest speaker (who spoke in the opening ceremony) came in and further emphasized his initiatives and his experience in the topic that delegates in GA4 are discussing : The question of addressing the impacts of forced relocation due to natural disasters.
   After lunch, everyone started lobbying again, and discussed for a long time. Then about 40 min after they got back, the raffle people came and asked for donations for the organization SALT, which helps the less fortunate in Taiwan by providing them with necessities.
Afterward,  delegates took a break and when they came back they  started to type and submit their amendments After that, they were debating their amendments as well as presenting the perspectives of their country, and they all were very respectful when objecting and disagreeing, or agreeing as well. And speaking and acting very professionally. Just like the other debates, they use language that the UN would say, “Would the delegate yield back to the chair or another to delegate?” and the delegate would respond with, “The delegate would like to yield back to the chair,” which is very impressive and showcased how delegates were following debate procedures. Even though things did get heated at times, they never crossed the line and handled it through discussion, ultimately reaching consensus. Although there was constant tension between delegates due to the debating, everyone handled things professionally. And no one really lost their cool. And also whenever a delegate makes a mistake in the rules, or says something that isn’t professional, the deputy chair or chair would correct them politely, but also strictly so they won’t make the same mistake again.
On the second day, delegates started with speeches, amendments and open debate. In SPECPOL II, delegates had an extended conversation on lowering tax rates in island nations. Delegates became more engaged than the previous days and would frequently ask questions. 
Overall, the GA4 SPECPOL environment was friendly, chatty, but serious and focused at the same time, they were able to chat, but also were focused and got their work done.

 

 

 

HLPF - Kyle C., Dylan C. 

The meeting started with people talking about their presentation and mostly it’s about water, saving and providing it to everyone. The delagests also talked about problems about how the water was not enough and not everybody gets clean water and they also talked about how the marine life in the ocean is getting hurt from us. They said “we need to find new ways to provide water and transform salty water to fresh water again” and “1.1 billion people don’t have enough water and ⅔ of the world is facing water scarcity.” People even whispered to other people, often saying “good speech.” Some people even talked about protecting ecosystems underwater. People even passed notes to other countries about their topic or presentation. 
And then people started to sit down into groups and then talk about the speeches and the information. People sat down and started talking about the solutions that they will agree and share to each other for their resolution. Sometimes people would quietly talk to each other while some other times they just stared at each other in blank silence. People representing different countries and sharing what they think the requirements and what they need to do for SDG #14. Next they found a few people with the same ideas to form a group that supports each other’s ideas (which are the same.) Later they will debate to see which one is the best solution and the most effective for sustainable development. 
The DSG came into the room and gave the presentation and the chairs gave their items a care package to give to Salt Collectiv and people also bought raffles for the prizes. Since sustainable development goals are to make the world a better place, they are donating items to Salt Collectiv to make care packages to make the world a better place and to help the poor and homeless people.
After a while, a delegate representing Germany started to make a speech to try to shape of people’s ideas to agree to their ideas of what the requirements and actions needed to take for SDG #14. Otherwise everybody was just sitting there in silence or working on their own documents. Later, the head chair began to ask people who agree to certain paragraphs to stand up and to debate to try to get a consensus. Delegates are still working on their documents for  different paragraphs. Then they would say their speeches about life below water. The delagests also talked about problems about how the water was not enough and not everybody gets clean water and they also talked about how the marine life- in the ocean is getting hurt from us. So the head chair told people they could merge together into groups to talk about their speeches and they would also pass notes and we had to read who it is for and we had  to give it to the people that's from its for. And then people started to sit down into groups and then talk about the speeches and the information. The Delegates and chairs were having problems with their doc. They are getting into groups and lobbying together, preparing for the debate. 
After Lunch, the guest speaker Dr. Kitalong came to further discuss his experiences in pharmacology and traditional plant medicines of Palau. He inspired the delegates with his passion in training young members of scientific communities and utilizing innovative exploration of plant species. 
Day two mostly centered around talking about illegal fishing and overfishing. There are different paragraphs and the deputy or head chair will ask, “Does anybody have questions, comments or reactions.” Then people would raise their hands and say what they would to change in the paragraphs. Today they were working on illegal fishing and overfishing to protect marine life. While also getting into the topic of life underwater. Sometimes delegates would have a mini debate over what idea they should add in the sentence or paragraph and later there would be a “and” in the middle or just a comma. Some people would also state that the sentence is too broad or unspecific enough. People were more eager to raise hands and share what they thought about the topics. 
The delegates occasionally would have objections over the sections and have a “clash” over who is right and they would protect why they were correct and why the other delegates or countries should support them. Overall, debate was engaging and fruitful, ending in resolutions passing and delegates championing their nation’s stance. 
 

​

​

HRC - Emma T. 
The room is a calm environment, it was calm and peaceful. They started off with playing two rounds of booklet asking some questions about TASMUN and THIMUN and some random facts. When the opening speech started. The delegate focused on different topics in HRC like safeguarding AI  from kids, fast fashion and the education problem.  AI is a powerful tool that can help us with many things. But we need to use it in the right way and safeguard children. Spain said AI can help shape the future, but we must use it in the right way. It can be good for learning and for education purposes, but we must protect people’s privacy, treat everyone fairly. Qatar said we need to protect children’s rights when using new technology. AI is used in schools, on the internet, and in other places. We have to make sure it’s safe and helps people, not hurting them. AI can help solve problems, but only if we build it the right way. Iceland mentioned in the future we would use AI  a lot and to make lots of decisions. The delegates talked about the education problem. They want to make a change in that. Currently, 160 million children can't go to school because their families don’t have enough money. Another problem is that fast fashion in Africa is becoming a big part of the fashion world. Lots of young people love it and this is really good for economics and the business and has a lot of job opportunities. However, they need help from other countries to make sure fashion is safe and fair for everyone. Thailand mentioned child labor is a main concern of the Fast Fashion situation. Another thing is that not all the workers are treated with respect which is a problem as well.
   The room is a calm environment, it was calm and peaceful. They started off with playing two rounds of booklet asking some questions about TASMUN and THIMUN and some random facts. When the opening speech started. The delegate focused on different topics in HRC like safeguarding AI  from kids, fast fashion and the education problem.  AI is a powerful tool that can help us with many things. But we need to use it in the right way and safeguard children. Spain said AI can help shape the future, but we must use it in the right way. It can be good for learning and for education purposes, but we must protect people’s privacy, treat everyone fairly. Qatar said we need to protect children’s rights when using new technology. AI is used in schools, on the internet, and in other places. We have to make sure it’s safe and helps people, not hurting them. AI can help solve problems, but only if we build it the right way. Iceland mentioned in the future we would use AI  a lot and to make lots of decisions. The delegates talked about the education problem. They want to make a change in that. Currently, 160 million children can't go to school because their families don’t have enough money. Another problem is that fast fashion in Africa is becoming a big part of the fashion world. Lots of young people love it and this is really good for economics and the business and has a lot of job opportunities. However, they need help from other countries to make sure fashion is safe and fair for everyone. Thailand mentioned child labor is a main concern of the Fast Fashion situation. Another thing is that not all the workers are treated with respect which is a problem as well.
   On the second day, the environment stayed calm and quiet as usual. The chair continuously reminded people not to use first person pronouns and was very helpful about it. Today they are talking about fast fashion industry and the child labour and how to resolve it. Bolivia made an amendment establishing programs that teach children below the ages of 12 how to protect their own rights.  Some countries said that they don't really agree because they feel like children under 12 aren't mature enough, would be hard to teach, and they don't tend to think about complex problems and topics. After this amendment has not passed, delegates think of other amendments. Usually, Kuwait, Cuba, Colombia, Bolivia, and Malawi  talked the majority of the time. Around the middle of the morning there were delegates that bought raffle tickets. When it was drafting time, people rarely talked, it was really quiet and everyone was doing work.
   Overall, the committee was tranquil, fun, and educational. 

​

ICJ - Robert T., Lucas F. 

Delegates from all over the world came to discuss the Pakistan and India Air Incident of 1999. At the start when everyone came in, there was a speaker talking from a packet labeled "Opening Statement." Pakistan was the Applicant and India was the Defendant.
Then they moved on to Evidence Weighing, where judges decided the importance of the evidence provided by both sides. Everyone was all typing/inserting graphs and different evidence.
Then, advocates began to introduce their witnesses, which got interrogated by each side as well as judges. Day one's debate was quite intense between all rounds. The advocates on the defendant side, representing India, were very aggressive and kept asking questions, and the applicants, Pakistan advocates, stayed relatively calm and collected. However, Pakistan's energy and vigor built up throughout the witness questioning rounds, increasing their objections to India's arguments and heating up the debate. When advocates got overly energetic and started interrupting witness statements, the president would control the room by banging the gavel. The judges' questioning rounds were also tense, as they asked multiple questions that confused witnesses.
The objections were intense, they often turned into large commotions and heated arguments. Witnesses were often questioned aggressively by advocates.
At the start of day 2, when everyone arrived, the ICJ committee directly jumped into a speech, which, like Saturday, was really intense. The defendant side was more chill and not yelling all the time, while the applicant side (Pakistan) started to become more aggressive.
Later on, advocates moved into back and forth crossfire, where they critique each other's cases, and discussed the inconsistencies of witnesses. Advocates for India brought up how Pakistan's witness couldn't answer basic work related credentials, while Pakistan pushed that they still provided valid witnesses for the case itself. Pakistan also brought up similar arguments on India's witnesses, especially on how their eyewitnesses, including a salt farmer, might have been unreliable due to job related side effects (eyesight being affected by extended periods of working under extreme sunlight). Both sides continuously picked out parts in each other’s cases, justifying their own assertions by pointing out the other’s faults.
Overall, the debates in the ICJ were really lively and intense.
Very worth going. 
 

​

​

SC - June K., Lucas T. 

The Situation in Syria
Delegates from countries all around the world, from US to Sierra Leone came out to discuss the ongoing civil war of Syria and Iran. The delegates each presented about the impact of the war and how to manage them. The delegate of Panama is the first to go on the podium to speak about what is going on in Syria and the concerns and what we need to do by saying “concern by the foreign militaries in Syria is not with the Syrian government's consent.” The delegate of Panama calls that the Security Council should ensure peace. But, some want to keep their military stationed there. The delegate of the United States says U.S military presence is important to help prevent terrorists from attacking. Pakistan is siding with the United States in terms of business. PRC doesn’t like what the states are doing because they fear military tension. 
After the delegates presented their speech, everybody started working on resolution in a serious mood. They discussed the type of cause, an economic strength each country could use for a problem and so on. It became more lively as they continued on lobbying, but nobody was distracted. After 2 hours of lobbying, the debate began.
The first topic was about the Civil War in Syria. Panama insisted that Syria requires international cooperation to support education. The delegate from Panama strongly stated, “Enslavement, trafficking and use of chemical weapons was a traumatic event for citizens, which requires a huge support in education.” The United States of America insisted on funding Syria for education. This created a huge blast of concern. Guyana came out and said about the contradictory response of the United States of America. The United States of America had proclaimed about cutting off the funding for Syria, but the delegate of the United states of America presented funding for Syria on education. This created contradictions in the proclamation. Guyana tried to make the United States of America talk more about the conflict, but the United States of America avoided answering. The delegate said, “Contradictory on my responses are not the main part of this clause.” The United Kingdom also came with the United States, and due to force from permanent 5 members, the concern on contradiction was not clarified.
During the debate, the United States also stated “Iran and Syria must be involved and should be allowed to present their opinion in the court. However, the United States of America is cutting off support on syria.” Furthermore other delegates also raise concerns about the US President and their political ambiguity on their commitments in Syria. 
At the end of the day, the announcement of the raffle tickets comes in and the delegates come up with resolutions and lobby for a long time until lunch.

The Situation in Iran
   On the Iran issue they were mainly split into two sides, one was to support Iran and the other was against Iran. Some nations are worried that the aid will not go to the people because the government is corrupt. But the other side assures the funding is really important and also has U.N security to look over the funding. At the funding. At the end of the debate they were more concerned about the specific clauses and if they made sense or not.
On the Iran issue, they were mainly split into two sides. One supported Iran and the other was against Iran. This was because of the corrupted government in Iran. The funding from the United Nations Security Council did not go to the helpless, hungry citizens but straight into the government’s pocket. This would do nothing to the civilians and victims of civil war but make the governmental secretaries richer. This was why some delegates from the countries hesitated to aid Iran. These countries also agreed on funding Iran, but not as active and fierce as the others. 
During the debate, some countries who think aid towards Iran would be meaningful wanted to fund for the nuclear enrichment in Iran. There was a clause where it did not make any sense. It was contradicting, so permanent 5 members of the security council had a talk about it. This clause was not modified, neither changed through amendment but was not passed and deleted by the threat from permanent 5 members.
Many clauses were not passed, but some were passed by an insistence that funding is desperately needed for the citizens of Iran. As a result, aid was decided to be sent to Iran.
 

​

​

UNEA - Ashley C., Ada P. 
The room was warm, everything was squished, and everyone was staring at some papers on their desks with their laptops and computers closed. The UNEA II committee, a committee about the use of AI to help with climate change, had begun.
After all the opening speeches, the room was split into 2 groups making two different resolutions. One of the groups’ discussions turned into an angry discussion, with moans of “can we hurry up…” and yells of “English!” being echoed around the group, but after a few minutes, they submitted the resolution and everything cooled down. A few minutes after that, it was lunch, and everyone fought their way out the door, hungry, and happy.
After the lunch of pizza and lemon iced tea, the delegates then continued to discuss their resolutions. No one disagreed with anything in the resolution at the beginning, making the head chair, Xun, pause the discussion and encourage the delegates to speak. There was then an argument between the delegate of Portugal and the delegate of Georgia where the delegate of Portugal brought up an example of a 5th grade kid in Europe and how he would use AI. After that, there was just conversation and revision of the resolution, and they eventually came to a consensus.
The second day was louder, and everyone had found their voice, making good heated arguments. With everyone standing and talking over each other, it resulted in the chair banging her gavel 6 times. In the end, the resolution was finished being edited and all the delegates came to a consensus, and clapping was an order.
 

​

​

UNFCCC - Angeline K.
The two main topics in UNFCCC this year are the involvement of women and children in taking climate action and stopping the problem of deterioration sinks because it has been the same from 10 years ago. Some delegates suggest doing programs to educate women and children, and some say that we need to listen to more of their voices and not discriminate against them.
After the delegates move towards each side of the room depending on their groups they start typing in their resolutions and working with each other. Delegates are asking each other questions while the head chair and deputy chairs make sure everyone understands and if they have any questions. When everyone was in the room at first everyone was dead silent, now after a bit of writing they are warming up to each other.
Even though TASMUN is only a 2 day event, everyone is getting to know each other and even asking each other questions such as "where are you from?" and hoping to make future friendships and bonds that will last a lifetime. After the line by line review, the amendment debate started. Some countries were more vocal than others at first. Later on, other countries started joining in the debate and conversation. In addition, delegates keep passing notes to each other through the pages. Overall, everyone eventually came to a consensus.
Day 2 of the conference more people are joining in on the conversation and debate. Also, due to time constraints some amendments are automatically passed. More delegates are taking sides and helping each other out. After, delegates donate to the Salt Collective for a raffle prize the chairs also have to do chair dares like water bucket dump once they get to a certain amount of money. The amount of money increases while the chairs get even more dares. When all the chaos ends they go back to amendment debate while the chairs encourage people to speak up and join in.
 

​

​

UNHCR - Matt H.
Imagine you need to migrate, and the fastest way would be the Darian Gap, but then floods, criminals, and other things go and block you from going that way. What do you do?
The delegates at the committee of UNHCR discuss issues about refugees, and propose meaningful resolutions. At the start of the first day, the room was all quiet, and the chair was the main person talking. When I first entered the room, an adult was talking about what the UNHCR provided for the Vietnamese Boat People. After the adult left, the chairs moved on to the general rules, points, motions, amendments, voting, and then the Lobbying/Approval Panel. They then went on to talk about the SDG overview. The chair said that they are collaborating with Salt Collectiv to raise money via a raffle, and that each ticket is 100 NTD. Winners will be chosen on Sunday. They also said that the committee that bought most raffle tickets/contributed most to Salt Collectiv gets a shoutout at the closing ceremony. They also can do a Chair Dare (dare a secretary general or someone to do a dare). The Chair says that you can get Jellycat or Stanleys so you should definitely buy the raffle tickets. They then do their opening speeches, they all talk about the issue of climate change and the Darien Gap, and then the lobbying starts. At the start of lobbying, people were split into groups and didn’t really know each other. But as soon as one person started talking, all of the groups started discussing the resolutions, and what they should write. After lunch, the delegates continued their lobbying, and the chairs were even allowed to play music during the lobbying as they convinced the adults to allow their resolutions to be debated. They started laughing and joking around when they finished it.
After lobbying ended, the delegates went back to their seats, and the debates started. Delegates were engaging in conversations back and forth, raising their placards to ask POIs or make speeches on each other’s amendments. Overall delegates were able to voice the concerns of their countries that they were representing. 
On day two, when I first went in, the Chair was making sure that everyone was there, and right after that, they moved straight into debating. Right when they finished the third resolution, the people came and brought the donation box. They talked about the chair dares and as soon as they mentioned that, the whole committee came to life! They started chanting “Confess! Confess!”. One of the chairs said that if they got 10k donations, then he would confess. As we only got to 5k, we couldn’t watch the chair confess, but could dump water on one of the chairs called “Morris”. When they left, the chairs told everyone to quiet down, and although they quieted down, the room seemed much more alive than before. After that, they kept debating, reaching consensus and ultimately passing resolutions.
 

​

​

WHA - Holly W. 
The opening speeches were very serious, people were talking about the dangers of social media and drugs, screen addictions and games. Cyprus believes that the problem of adolescence is being addicted to social media. Denmark was very loud and was very confident. He was asking questions to the students. He was very serious and had a loud voice. The speaker for Greece was talking about the overuse of antibiotics. And talking about how after antibiotics were created, the world has been overusing it in the wrong way. The speaker for Senegal was very quiet and was talking about how not all people know how to use social media and video games in the right, healthy way. Most opening speeches highlighted cyberbullying, people overusing social media, and overuse of antibiotics as the main issue.
During lobbying, everyone got split into groups,to talk about their topic. Lobbying wasn’t really interesting, people were just writing on each other's documents. In the middle of lobbying, the SALT collective people came in to receive items the delegates prepared. WHA II: I felt that this room was a bit more cozy and peaceful, everyone was just working on their committee information.People Were all talking to each other. The room had some humor. People were just working on their committee work. Pages walked in during the lobbying. Everyone was very collaborative. The first speaker talking about clauses was talking about how antibiotics being overused needs to be stopped. The delegate of Germany was talking about diseases and how one of the diseases was in antibiotic resistance, he thought that this was not mentioned. The delegate of Bangladesh would like to modify it even though both clauses showed how to go against antimicrobial resistance, so he merged both clauses together, and that he believes that people listen better in public spaces, and just talking about vaccines was too vague. He also thought if we were actually talking to people about fighting against antimicrobial resistance, then they should do talk shows and podcasts, because it grabs more audience attention.
The delegate of Germany was really confident about resolving the NTD crisis and making a positive change and helping antimicrobial resistance. The reason that the delegate talked about NTD disease was because it has many diseases mixed together, and the delegate of Bangladesh was telling the delegate of Germany to talk about other diseases other than just NTD disease because there are so many other diseases out there, and there is only one getting talked about. There were also some disagreements from other delegates about this issue. The delegates who disagree with amendments are also very confident with their speech, giving out many reasons why this should not be voted.
Delegates continued to talk back and forth for a long time. At the end of the day, everyone in the room was very excited about raising money for the donations to see the chair dare.
​