Over the past few weeks, from 19 November to 3 December, we hosted a thrilling and highly engaging debate series on one of the most contentious topics in international politics: regulating military presence in the South China Sea. This three-part debate brought together delegates representing 24 countries and regions, creating an enriching platform for diverse viewpoints and intense diplomacy.
Key Moments:
Major Players Take the Spotlight
Delegates from China, Russia, and Taiwan were at the forefront, passionately advocating their positions and sparking lively discussions. Their engagement kept the energy high throughout the debate, with each move carefully calculated to strengthen their strategic stance.
Neutral Mediators Foster Dialogue
Delegates from countries geographically distant from the South China Sea, such as the Netherlands, stepped up as mediators. Their efforts to facilitate constructive dialogue highlighted the importance of impartial voices in resolving global disputes.
Unpredictable Leadership
Adding a layer of intrigue and humour to the proceedings, the Chair—while steering the discussions—proved to be not entirely impartial, leading to some unexpected twists and entertaining moments.
The Dramatic Finale: Two Working Papers Merge
The debate culminated in a head-to-head between two well-crafted working papers:
One led by China, which proposed policies reflecting its strategic interests and vision for regional dominance.
The other, championed by Bangladesh, aimed for a more collaborative and inclusive approach to regulating military presence.
After prolonged and often heated negotiations, the two blocs achieved a diplomatic milestone by merging their proposals. This act of compromise was a powerful demonstration of the value of teamwork and negotiation in finding shared solutions to global challenges.
The Final Vote: A Narrow Passage
The merged resolution faced a mixed response during the final vote:
While it gained China’s critical approval, the outcome was marred by several abstentions, notably from the United States and Bangladesh.
As a result, the paper passed—but not with the overwhelming support typically hoped for in such resolutions.
Reflections on the Debate Series
Spanning several weeks, this debate block highlighted the intricacies of diplomacy and the challenges of achieving consensus on sensitive issues. It also demonstrated the value of collaboration and the perseverance required to navigate international relations.
We’re proud of the effort and enthusiasm each delegate brought to the table and look forward to seeing these skills in action again in future debates.
Comments