Al-Bayan Bilingual School
Links to other sites on the Web:
Back to the Teams'
Team History from Two Years Ago
The MUN Briefing Book Library
Go to Al-Bayan Bilingual
Al-Bayan Bilingual School turned in a very fine performance at CACMUN 2000. Unfortunately, due to some political problems, not all of the schools originally scheduled for this event actually attended.
BBS emerged as the second best school at the event, after the host school, Cairo American College. This conclusion stems from the fact that only BBS, other than CAC, had resolutions debated in the General Assembly and that BBS wrote 5 of the 9 resolutions considered for debating. Further, BBS held down a whopping four Security Council seats, the UK, France, Argentina, and Bahrain, and clearly proved the
dominent school in that forum. BBS also started a tradition at this event of delivering
"the speech of the event." In this case honors go to the Sudan (see below) whose speech
not only failed a resolution but resulted in even the submitters going against it.
BBS prepares to board the plane.
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HIGHLIGHTS
Two students from Bayan had a chance to familiarize themselves with the International Court of Justice, Besma Al Mutawa and Maryam Al Hamad.
The court case involved India and Pakistan. India had downed a Pakistani military aircraft that blundered into Indian airspace (click
here to read to read their complete report)
Maryem and the Court consider carefully.
Maryem Al Hamad, who actually judged the case,
made the following statement:
In this case, both counties were considered guilty, however India was guiltier. Pakistan was guilty because the aircraft went close to the borders without giving any notifications beforehand to India that they were having a practice team on air. India, however, had to pay 450 thousand dollars to each family that had a son on the aircraft that was shot down since they were all killed, but they were excused from paying back the amount of money for the damaged aircraft because Pakistan was found guilty too. Finally, a no-fly zone had to be placed between those two countries at 10 Km from each side.
From this case, I learned how to judge things properly. At the beginning of the case, I quickly thought that Pakistan was innocent and the blame went on India because of the shootings and the dead military men. However, after we proceeded with the case and discussed it more carefully, I realized that Pakistan was guilty also because it didnít notify India at all of what was going to happen and went on near the Pakistani borders.
Also, this experience helped me improve my speech with others and made me view things in a different way. It also taught me that a person shouldnít judge things from the first look but should put everything into consideration.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY HIGHLIGHTS
The General Assembly only debated three issues. While BBS gave a lot of newcomers a chance to make a mark, its delegates did not quite equal the performance of previous years with a couple of delegates noticably "silent."
Probably the low point of the event occurred when the chairs decided to limit debate on Hungary's resolution on the internet despite the fact that many BBS delegates had further comments to make. Subsequently, a vote brought this resolution down to defeat.
The high point, perhaps of the entire event, lay in the performance and damning speech of Sudan on the peace proposal brought forward by Israel. Sudan's passioned but reasoned speech, the culmination of several yields by BBS students, condemned the spirit and body of the resolution so throughly that not only did it fall, but most countries removed their names from the signers list, including the submitter and co-submitter.
General Assembly Issues:
1. The Question of the Role of the UN Regarding Intervention in a State or a Region for Humanitarian Purposes.
2. The Question of Developing an International Legal Code to Deal WithCriminal Activity on the Internet (WWW) such as hacking, pornography,viruses, etc.
3. How to restore civility to the situation in Palestine.
General Assembly Delegates: Nouf, Sukaina, Sara, Nada, Hamad al
Saleh, Hamad Sultan, Nasser, Nabil, Rakkan, and Abdullah.
Bahrain: Sukaina Fakhral-Deen
As the ambassador of Bahrain (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book), I was a prosperous as a leader. In my opening speech I illustrated the government of Bahrain, and learned many things about Bahrain, such as its policy, history, natural resources, its friends and enemies and its natural resources. In the lobbying and merging I was able to get my resolution merged in with the other Arab Countries, and told them to take some of my pre-amb clauses, and some of my clauses, and they merged theirs with some of mine. The weird thing is that the delegate of Palestine didnít mention anything about the OSLO, and I was the only one that did mentioned the OSLO in my resolution. Unfortunately, I couldnít get them to put me as a submitter, only as a co-submitter.
The thing that I liked was when I got to ask points of information (around 3 or above), and speak in an open debate. The part that I really, really liked was when our MUN group smashed a resolution that belonged to Israel (thanks to Nabil (i.e. the Sudan) :) ).
I HOPE THAT NEXT YEAR WEíLL BE THE BEST SCHOOL IN MUN
Bangladesh (GA): Abdullah Al Asousi
I represented Bangladesh. (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) this year in the GA in CACMUN. We had three issues to talk about. The first issue was on the U.N. intervening in a state for humanitarian purposes. I submitted a resolution and it was chosen the second one to be debated. I proposed an amendment that made the U.N. also intervene for an overpowering invasion on a country. When I spoke, I said that everyone needed to vote for this amendment and I gave an example of the 1990 Gulf War where Iraq invaded Kuwait. Unfortunately, that amendment failed by a difference of two votes only. To my shock, the second resolution, which I submitted was not debated.
On the second issue, I was totally against the idea of developing a code for the internet. This time however, I just wanted to make points of information also, I asked a point of information about how the resolution was strict about the freedom of speech. The resolution failed and then we discussed the next resolution on the same issue. When it was the last time for anyone to speak when the Chair asked for points of information, and he chose me. I asked the delegate of the Central African Republic why did she go for the resolution and it was totally not detailed besides not doing anything.
On the third issue that was on Palestine and was submitted by Israel and the U.S.A., I was against it because it gave too much too Israel and didnít help our Muslim brothers. There was an amendment that requested Israel to with-draw from the Golan in Syria, so when there was time against this resolution I thanked the U.S. first on its very important role in the middle east peace, and I urged all nations to be against this amendment since there must be negotiation on occupied land, and if Israel with-drawled form Syria now, there would be conflicts and problems between the two countries. The delegate of the U.S. gave me a thumbs-up when I said that. That was what I did in CACMUN and I wished I had more time to speak on resolutions.
Bolivia: Nada Abduljader
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) played an active and important role in the Cairo American College Model United Nations. It was able to solve all challenges made from different countries to disable their enemies. Further more, Bolivia had an honest point of view on all issues debated. It was the sun that shone among all delegated to show it presence. Being the delegate of Bolivia in CACMUN was an honor and a great privilege for me, not mentioning that it was an interesting experience too.
Bosnia: Tareq Al Rubei
The honored delegate from
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) was sick most of this trip. However, several key phrases of Bosnia's did appear in the resolution
that passed on issue # 1.
The Central African Republic: Sarah Al Dukair
The Central African Republic (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
accomplished many things in CACMUN.
The issue which mostly concerned Central African Republic was the
role of the UN regarding intervention in a state or region for
humanitarian purposes. Unfortunately only one resolution was passed
for this issue. Several points were against my own country's
policy. Central African Republic voted for that resolution
after amendments. On the second issue two resolutions were submitted on
The first one was pretty weak because of the unexplained gaps it had.
The second resolution was strong and useful. I talked for this
resolution and I was open to unlimited points of information.
The third issue was about Palestine and Israel, and two
resolutions were submitted on the issue itself.
Two resolutions were also represented on this topic.
I was against this resolution. I asked Israel one question.
Unexpectedly, even the two main submitters took off their names.
The second issue was a fair resolution.
Therefore, I believe that this past event was successful
and I think all delegates learned something new.
I know it was a short period of time but it was a useful experience.
Hungary: Rakan Al Bahar
I, as ambassador of Hungary, (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) achieved many things in our trip to CACMUN. First of all, in lobbying and merging, I managed to lobby my resolution, and get it debated. On the first resolution, submitted by the U.S on U.N intervention, I spoke for it pointing out the good points of the resolution, and for the first time I proposed an amendment. The amendment failed, but I still voted for the resolution.
As for the second resolution debated, Iím proud to say that I was the one who submitted it, along with New Zealand. I strongly supported it, and made it as clear as possible, but unfortunately, the delegate of Turkey got up, and just started pointing out inefficient arguments and faultless mistakes in the resolution, so it failed at the end.
In conclusion to all this, I believe that I served Hungaryís best interests, and everything I did was within character for Hungary. To me, this trip was very beneficial, because I started to perceive the importance of politics among nations; I also proved to myself that one could prove a point, and fortunately in our stay there I made a couple of friends which I hope I can keep in-touch with in the future.
Iran: Hessa Al Malallah (Othmann)
In CACMUN, Iran (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) participated as a member of the GA. Because of health problems, Iran wasn't able to show it's full ability of performing. Iran was against the issue of intervention for humanitary purposes without a country's approval nor with a UN resolution as it is against the UN charter. The second issue, about Palestin and Israel's long-term crisis, was indeed an interesting one. Iran spoke twice on this issue, going against the first one by Israel and supporting the resolution by the PNA (Palestine). The third issue was indeed an interesting one too. It was about the internet usage and the prosecution of hackers. Iran was with both resolutions that were intertained in this issue. Rakkan Al-Bahar, the honorable delegate of Hungary presented a well spelled out and successful resolution. Iran applauded all the efforts that were voices in the CACMUN 2000 meeting. Iran spoke three times in the whole CACMUN 2000 meeting once on every issue.
Liberia: Nasser Al Shaya
As the delegate of Liberia, (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) I was able to portray a more than good image of my government and population. I had the opportunity to testify at the Security Council about the issue dealing with Sierra Leon and the smuggling of Diamonds. For that my country had to say that this is a false accusation, since that Liberia is an ally for the U.S.A, how can it go against it by cutting taxes on those exported diamonds that have Liberian stamps all over the boxes but actually originated from Russia.
At the general assembly I was most effective in the first and third issues, simply because the second was dealing with computer technology that I did not have nor own the ability to acquire. For the first issue, Liberia had the floor twice stressing on the fact that poor countries need aid of all sorts, and the resolution debated did not mention that so I proposed an amendment that the delegate of South Africa stole from me.Moreover in issue three, Liberia was yielded to by Zimbabwe and had the opportunity to ask more than three points of information. Finally, Liberia pointed out the fact that some clauses in the third issue resolution were contradictory, some words were vague and superficial since they needed strong basis, bring out false clauses, and most importantly brought to the attention of all delegations the fact that Israel wrote a clause that did not stop the violence.
New Zealand: Ghazi Al Sharhan
I strongly believe that I represented New Zealand (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) very well at CACMUN, of course taking into consideration that they were very BIASED in choosing the speakers. I believe that I did a very good job in merging my resolution with Hungary's Resolution and fixing it. I also believe that I had a major effect on the policies of other countries towards the resolution of Israel.
I accomplished that by passing a very large amount of notes and, by that, communicating with the delegates of other countries and making things go the way that WE always wanted. At CACMUN, BBS has made a historic move. That move was to change the base clauses of Israels' resolution and replace them with clauses that support Palestine, and at the end also vote against the resolution thinking that it's still not good enough. And that was what we did exactly, and we didn't stop at this point, but we extended it to make EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE GA follow our steps on this resolution. And New Zealand had a very effective part in all of this.
Abdullah, Ghazi, and Hamad look confident and poised.
Portugal: Hamad Al Saleh
Portugal (click here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
had a great impact in the CACMUN. Portugal co-submitted with Hungary in the resolution on issue 2. Portugal did that because its friends and looking for a good relation with Hungary. Portugal is trying to be like the other European countries but its not doing well in that. Portugal was with the resolution of Isreal because the UK, USA, France and the other countries are with it. Portugal stated that it was with the resolution only if Isreal is willing peace. Portugal is with the UK in issue 1 because Portugal wants a good relationship with the UK. Portugal had great experience in the CACMUN and will do better in the up coming MUNís. Even though the chair didnít allow Portugal to ask more that two questions in the whole debate.
Romania: Hamad Sultan
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) played an important role at CACMUN. It co-signed with three resolutions in which two were discussed. The issue that Romania cared about the most was the first, which was Intervention in a state or region. Romania thought that this was the best issue that could solve the problems in Romania. Romaniaís effort to speak during the meeting was very high, but unfortunately Romania was only called upon three times. Romania wrote four speeches in which none were read because Romania was never chosen to read them. Even though no speeches were read, three very powerful questions were asked in which the other person either could not answer or changed the topic in the answer. In Romaniaís opinion Romania had a great effect on all issues at CACMUN.
South Korea: Mohammad Fakhral-Deen
The delegate from The Republic of South Korea (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) ended up acting as the French ambassador.
For comments, refer to the French SC delegation below. Clauses from his resolution formed the basis for the
Bangladeshi resolution mentioned above.
Sudan: Nabil Al Khaled
As delegate of The Republic of Sudan (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
at CACMUN 2000, I believe that I have achieved all of the goals set for my
country. First of all, during lobbying and merging, many of my allies were
not present (Iran, Iraq, DPR Korea, Cuba, Libya).
Therefore, I merged with other nations on the first issue.
The second day, I wrote a new resolution from scratch on the spot.
After that, I had about thirty minutes to obtain co-sponsors.
I did so, and submitted my resolution to the Approval Panel.
The Israeli resolution on this topic was chosen instead of the Sudan's.
In the first session, the resolution submitted by Bosnia and the United States
was debated. As Sudan, I was strongly against this resolution. I was allowed to speak
twice only. At the beginning of the debate, I made a speech pointing out
that the resolution was a gross violation of national sovereignty.
I continued to point out its flaws, until I had to yield the floor to the chair. I then listened to several arguments FOR the resolution, and decided that it was time for the chairs to select someone against. They did not, all the speakers until the end of the debate time were for, although I was raising my placard every single time they asked for speakers. They did allow me to make a final speech against it at the end, in which I spoke vehemently against it. At the end, the resolution was passed, which was understandable, since almost all of the speeches were for it.
In between sessions, my director pointed out that they were only
selecting those delegates who have proposed amendments,
so the only way to get the floor was to write a poor amendment,
have it fail, and then regain the floor.
The next resolution was about Issue #2, submitted by Hungary and
New Zealand. although It did not readily address the issue of censorship
of pornography, it proposed effective solutions to the problem of
Internet hacking. I spoke many times during that resolution,
strongly supporting it. I had proposed an amendment, failed it,
and regained the floor. I then proceeded to point out the strong
points of the resolution, and took all points of information.
During the rest of debate time, I spoke for the resolution at least
five times, continuing to support it. all this floor time was a result of
yielding. all the delegates speaking for knew that I was a strong supporter
of the resolution, and knew that the Chair was not going to pick me again,
so they yielded to me without my request. I believe
that I exhausted all methods in supporting the resolution.
The resolution failed.
Next, another resolution on Issue #2 was debated
(submitted by Israel). I spoke against it twice because it was flawed
and missing many points. However, at the end, it passed.
Another resolution submitted by Israel on Issue #3 was debated, and it
was heavily flawed. I had a yielding plan with many of my BBS counterparts,
and after Zimbabwe received the floor, she yielded to me. I spoke against
it for a long time, pointing out that voting for this resolution "would
be a crime." I went clause by clause, virtually destroying the resolution.
The basis of many of my arguments was that Israel was making many promises
in this resolution that it has broken before. After my speech,
almost all of the delegates were supporting my ideas, and were
heavily amending the resolution. After major amendments were passed, the
co-submission list was opened. During that time, ALL of the
submitters of the resolutions removed their names from the list, including Israel and the United States. Voting for the resolution was then administered, and, except for Czech Republic, who abstained, the resolution failed unanimously! For the final resolution submitted by the Palestinian National Authority, I never received the floor, but voted for the resolution, since it was within Sudanís policy.
In conclusion, I believe that I have represented Sudan well
at the conference. Everything that I did was well within character for
Sudan, and I got as much speaking time possible. although none of my
resolutions were debated, I had very strong arguments (for or against)
all the resolutions debated.
Zimbabwe: Nouf Al Fraih
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) played an active role in the General Assembly even though most of the issueís didnít concern Zimbabwe. To begin with, Zimbabwe was the first one to give a right of reply in the opening speeches, and continued giving rights of reply all through the opening speeches.
On issue#1, the issue of the role of the United Nations intervening in a region or area for humanitarian purposes, Zimbabwe was really active. It was called upon a few times for points of information, and to talk for/ against amendments.
On issue#2, The question of developing an international legal code to deal with criminal activity on the Internet. Zimbabwe sent an amendment, however time for open debate elapsed before getting to it. Nevertheless, Zimbabwe spoke against the resolution attacking the fact that only rich and developed countries will and can benefit from it. It was a good resolution, but what has to be done was what was done, I had to go against it. The resolution failed.
As for issue # 3, The question of the admittance of Palestine into the United Nations as a full voting member, Zimbabwe talked against an amendment in the first resolution on this issue. As for the second resolution on this issue, Zimbabwe reminded the honorable delegates of the United States and Israel that they were stepping out of character by writing a resolution that will stop the war. also, Zimbabwe reminded Israel on the hundred thousand promises it made, but doesnít put into action, which meant that they were either lying then or now. Zimbabwe also made a point to all the countries present,
"How can you vote for a resolution that wants peace from the person who is holding a war? How can you trust a country that made so many promises, but no action at all, except for the violence and killing?"
Zimbabwe also replied to the previous speakers note that Palestinians are throwing rocks at the Israeli troops by reminding all the countries that Palestine has no other way to defend themselves against Israelís military troops, that in fact went against Palestineís National Sovereignty. The speech might not have been well delivered, but Zimbabwe made its points clear enough for the countries to understand. To everyoneís surprise, everyone, even the submitters of the resolutions themselves, voted against the resolution!
Zimbabwe, Bahrain, the Central African Republic, Bolivia, Portugal,
Romania, the Sudan, Liberia, Hungary, New Zealand, and Bangladesh.
SECURITY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS
BBS held down three Security Council seats going to this event. At the last minute, CAC requested BBS to fill a fourth seat, that of absent France. BBS dominated the debate both as active superpowers (UK and France) and as neutral problem-solving smaller countries (Argentina and Bangladesh) with Bangladesh having a distinctive voice as representative of the Moslem countries. The Security Council issues included:
Somebody's addressing the SC, probably from BBS
Other than the contributions of Malaysia, the
sessions often seemed like a BBS practice with the floor rotating between France,
The United Kingdom, Argentina, and Bangladesh. Probably the most contentious
moment came when Bangladesh (see below) tried to an insert a clause into the Middle East
resolution requiring Israel to pay "war reparations." This resulted, not only in
a veto by the United States but (realistically) a continuation of the crisis
in Palestine. Peace proved as elusive in CACMUN as in the real world!
Security Council Issues
1. Sierra Leone and the Role of UN Peace Making and Peace Keeping.
2. Southern Lebanon and the Role of the UN in Regional Stability.
3. Ethiopian and Eritrian War and Humanitarian Crisis.
4. The Restoration of the Peace Process and/or Civility in Palestine.
SC countries ambassadors' statements
Argentina: Saad Al Ghawas
I was presented with the opportunity of representing Argentina (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book)in the Security Council at CACMUN 2000 which I immediately took advantage of. Argentina of course has a traditional role of being a neutral, peacemaking and keeping nation. I played that role to the best of my ability and am quite satisfied with the results of my actions in the Security Council.
Throughout the event I had formed partial alliances with certain other nations including Malaysia, France, Bahrain, and the United Kingdom. The United States was usually against my policy which consisted of amending the policy that the UN has for peacekeeping troops, specifically their inability to return fire in hostile situations. The US opposed this view vehemently although there were nations that supported my stand specifically Malaysia.
My relations with the United Kingdom were strong despite the issue of the Falklands because none of the issues being debated were relevant to that particular issue. I supported resolutions that called for a more active role for the UN in peacemaking and keeping operations namely in the West Bank and Africa. I believe that I played a vital role in the Security Council and that my presence had a significant effect on the outcome of our session.
attended this event and spoke as a neutral voice on several isues. In particular, it spoke a
lot on the topic of Africa and the Middle East since Argentian troops would,
quite likely, form part of any multi-national force sent to either area.
Bangladesh: Adel Al Omar
I, as the ambassador of Bangladesh Bangladesh (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book) in the Security
Council believe that I
represented the ôBengal Tigersö with all my abilities.
It was an honor to me and was my pleasure representing Bangladesh.
Bangladesh is a country with a foreign policy that
respects the national sovereignty and equality, non-interference
in internal affairs of other countries, peaceful settlement of
international disputes, right of people to self-determination
and respect international law. Bangladesh tried to represent
the Islamic world. Based on these principles, Bangladesh's
role in the Security Council has been to strive for international
peace and security, to contribute toward general and complete
disarmament and support the people throughout the world
struggling for political, social and economic emancipation.
Bangladesh has participated in peacekeeping operations
across five continents including in many difficult and
dangerous missions and on this basis we find it important deploying more peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone and in between Ethiopia and Eritrea in order for peace to occur.
I also participated in the discussion of all resolutions in order to represent Bangladesh the neutral worldwide peace seeking country.Suddenly the conference exploded by the clause I proposed by which Israel should pay war reparations for Lebanon. It took endless effort to get countries support, bearing in mind opposing the Israel and so the USA but we believe as an Islamic neutral country that we should decide on the bases of humanity. The US ambassador opposed this clause and was going to veto.. why? Why do you go against this clause when you lead other countries in the process of Iraq paying war reparations to Kuwait? I asked this question to the US ambassador and he felt so embarrassed. Unfortunately, The US vetoed the whole resolution because of this clause, going out of character. In conclusion, Bangladesh was represented very well in the Security Council and its presence had its significance.
France: Mohammad Fakhral-Deen
here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
On the first issue of the SC agenda, the issue of peacekeeping in Sierra Leone, France was, unfortunately unavoidably detained. France managed to be present near the end of the SC discussion on this issue. One clause suggested that the national police and army have a role in the maintenance of stability. France wasnít pleased with this since the former military of Sierra Leone was the body that the overthrew the government, thus France amended the clause to suggest the training, if necessary, of the national police and army by UNAMSIL officials so that the former, if necessary, assist the latter in maintaining the stability and security of the region after the region has been initially stabilized by UNAMSIL officials and personnel, and after UNAMSIL has left the region. One more significant clause of the resolution that France "liked" was a clause the made France involved in the situation; France wanted to be involved, for there were no French troops in the region. Nigeria donated the most troops, the UK was also a major donator of troops in the region, and, of course, the US had a big role to play in the region, (as it always does); thus France supported this clause in order to have a stronger position in the region for the maintenance of peace and the restoration of democracy.
On the second issue of the SC agenda, the issue of peacekeeping in Southern Lebanon, France had an obviously important pro-Lebanese role since Lebanon was Franceís ex-colony. France proposed the first clause of the resolution; it basically reaffirmed the role and tasks of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). France considered vetoing the resolution, but it didnít have to negatively affect its reputation, for the United States vetoed, thus France didnít need to do so. As for the reason why the US vetoed, read on. When the Bangladeshi delegate proposed a clause for Israel to pay war reparations to Lebanon, France had to abstain because, even though France wanted Israel to pay. But not even the US delegate had the power to do anything else, for he was abiding by US policy.
The third issue on the SC agenda, the issue of the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict and peacekeeping in the region, passed extremely quickly. France voted for the resolution because it basically reinstated the role of the UNHCR, and various other humanitarian organizations. The resolution also created a path for refugees to take. France proposed a clause on the role of UNICEF in the region in terms of educating and protecting children, (it had various sub-clauses about shelter, food, and not allowing children to participate in combat, armed or not). The clause passed successfully with only one amendment.
France basically gave a good impression of its intentions to promote peace worldwide, even in regions and issues that did not directly pertain to France; this improved Franceís image in the eyes of other nations, further encouraging these nations to compromise and cooperate with France on the issue of Southern Lebanon, (on which debate continued after the resolution on the third issue was completed), and on various other aspects.
United Kingdom: Mustafa Malaki
United Kingdom: (click
here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
Representing the United Kingdom in the Security Council of the 33rd session of CACMUN, I, Mustafa Malaki, personally believed that I had achieved my preset goals. I succeeded in portraying a good image of my country, and refrained from using my veto power whenever the decisions did not directly relate to my country.
On the issue about Sierra Leone, I proposed a clause that raised much controversy and argument in the session (by the way, I like proposing this kind of clauses). This clause basically asked as United Nations committee to assist the government of Sierra Leone with promotion of democracy and elections, and it passed with majority of votes. I also proposed a clause about the humanitarian situation in Sierra Leone which passed with clear majority. I also succeeded in failing several clauses that went against my policy, one of which asked the NATO to be under the command of UN. However, I voted against as well as the US, while others abstained. On the resolution as a whole, I abstained as it was passed.
As for the second issue, again, I and another delegate merged our clauses into one which was discussed for an hour. The clause suggested establishing a demilitarized zone in Southern Lebanon. However, the delegate of the US disagreed and the Israeli delegate was invited to make a speech. It passed with a majority of votes, but only extreme pressure.
Later the same day, another clause was proposed asking Israel to pay war reparations to Lebanon. However, I took the floor and made a 2-minute speech on the clause as a whole, focusing on the fact that it was somehow biased. The resolution failed as a result of US veto, while I abstained.
On the last issue, I proposed one clause (the way they allowed us to propose clauses was to have your name written on a list.
On another clause that asked UN to send in more peacekeeping forces into the region, I succeeded in persuading France, through notes, to vote for since the peacekeeping forces did not include neither UK nor French forces, and that we would not have been affected if this clause had passed. This clause indeed passed as well as the resolution as a whole.
All in all, I liked the way I altered some nationsí decisions through my speeches and individual notes. The latter was more effective and productive, since I discussed secret things with my allies.
From Bowling to Boating: Exploring Cairo
There's no city quite like Cairo (perhaps thankfully). The Pharoahs liked it,
and so did the Fatamids. However, they didn't have to deal with rush hour
traffic. They did, however, have to drink the water, which explains why they
mummified King Tut at the grand old age of fourteen. Thanks to Sara and Maryem
for providing some of the photos below.
Nouf and Hessa relax at the bowling alley.
Why don't they have bowling alley at Kuwait's Friday's?
Mustafa, Adel, Mohommad, Nasser, Maryem and Nada share a moment.
Maryem, Sarah, and Nabil enjoy the night life.
How come they don't have arcades like this in Kuwait?
Tareq, Abdullah, and Adel plan their bowling strategy.
Now, we'll have to leave a bigger tip to the driver:
Hamad Sultan and Hamad al Saleh take a meeting.
Nabil and Mohammad prepares for a Nile cruise.
Sukaina spots an Egyptian statue.
Hamad, Adel, and Ghazi prepare to try-out for Greek football.
Cruising down the river: Hessa (front); Mustafa, Ghazi, Maryem,
and Sara (center row); Hamad, Nabil, and Mohammad (back).
This (ancient) Egyptian lady tried to teach Sarah how to cook.
Nada is apparently not enjoying this cruise as much as the rest!
Many of the boys: Hamad, Mohammad, Hamad, Adel,
Nasser, Nabil, and Rakkan.
Sarah and Nasser crash an Egyptian wedding.
Abdullah tells Hamad, Sarah, Maryem, and Nouf:
"I saw this once in a John Wayne movie!"
The eternal pyramids
Maybe Mr. Dan will let us ride to Istanbul?
This page hosted by