MUN 2025

Presentation : 

On the 27th of January, the MUN (Model United Nations) took place in our University of Rennes. Numerous students gathered to create and play a role in a fictional UN General Assembly. Each state was represented by a student or group of students in a debate which concerned the indigenous rights in the following countries : Turkey, New Zealand, Mexico, India, Denmark , China, Canada, Brazil and Australia. On top of that, two students represented the President and the vice-president of the Assembly, under the supervision of the English teacher Florence Laigle-Ré. Their role involved to remind the procedure to the representatives, give them the floor and above all to arbitrate the debate.

Set up of the Assembly : 

The president starts by taking the register, and asking if the state representatives want to vote. All of us agree with this and then, they are asked to sum up their opinion about the subject of indigenous people. In this introduction of their vision, several groups seem to already appear in the debate. Countries like Australia, New Zealand or Denmark advocate for real solutions and change to even more protect the indigenous rights, while China, Turkey or India look more on a defensive way. Even though they insist on the stakes of indigenous rights, they are advocating for the protection of their sovereignty. As well as the procedure being difficult, students have to respect the real opinion and position of their states.

Launch of the debate : 

Afterwards, the president and vice-president launch a debate and concrete exchanges start between several states : a strict procedure is respected thanks to their ruling, which consists of making step by step representatives have an indirect discussion. From this moment, the entire debate is improvised. Thus, it leads to a moderated caucus of 9 minutes proposed by New Zealand about the topic of "emphasizing cultural aspects of indigenous". The representatives of this state advocate for a non differential access to culture between settlers and indigenous people by teaching their language in school. Briefly, Canada and Australia follow them about this idea of multiculturalism.

Next to this productive exchange and still under the arbitration of the presidents, Turkey decides to propose an unmoderated caucus and everyone agrees. An unmoderated debate lasts at least 10 minutes and all of the students can discuss between them without formalities : the aim is to find proposals.

Negotiations and draft of resolutions :

Negotiations then began, with Brazil and New Zealand quickly asserting themselves as powerhouses, as their representatives remained seated whilst other countries gathered around them. In contrast, China and Turkey appeared quite isolated as they both tried to convince their peers to moderate their demands.

Both put the emphasis on the need for a strong national identity, with indigenous people remaining a part of the Nation whilst being granted some special rights. As such, Turkey proposed the idea of instituting special cultural zones. In an unlikely turn of event, India operated a rapprochement with China, its traditional adversary. The Union justified this by saying that it agrees on the idea of multiculturalism but stressed the need for economic sovereignty and a national identity, as the country is at the centre of tensions. Furthermore, it defended itself against accusations of massive displacement of people, saying that they were provided new homes. They also wanted to be seen as representative of the Global South.

Mexico and Brazil expressed their commitment to the protection of the culture of indigenous people on their soil, with the former promising to give them a place in the institutions, to voice their concerns. They quickly forged ties with Denmark. Meanwhile New Zealand garnered the support of Commonwealth countries, Canada and Australia, to propose the creation of tribunals with the aim of protecting indigenous rights across the world. This was by far the most radical proposal of the assembly by far.

Vote on the resolutions :

After delegates went back to their seats and the confusion subsided, the voting began on the three resolutions that had been drafted. Resolution n°1 was sponsored by New Zealand, Canada and Australia, with Mexico and India being signatories. Its content mainly revolved around the creation of international courts. As such, India proposed an amendment to make the court’s decisions non-binding, which failed to pass. After this, the resolution was adopted, with six delegations voting in favour and three against, including Turkey, China and India.

Next was resolution n°2, sponsored by Turkey and China and signed by India. It focused on the creation of special zones and respect for national sovereignty. In a twist, India failed to include a clause for respect of Human Rights in an amendment. The resolution then failed to pass, with only its supporters voting in favour. This prompted an angry reaction by Turkey, who denounced the hypocrisy of “colonising countries” presenting themselves as “white knights” whilst voting against Human Rights. This in turn led to a tense exchange between Denmark and Turkey on the subject of Greenland, but thankfully, a diplomatic incident was avoided. 

Finally, as time was running out, the delegates voted to close the session without examining resolution n°3 dealing with the teaching of language in schools and a new global fund. As the delegates managed to adopt one resolution on the subject of culture, the session was considered a success and ended.

Gildas Charbonnier and Joachim Rabasse