Al-Bayan Bilingual School
Model U.N. Page

KFSAC 2000

Links to other sites on the Web:

Back to the Year's History
Back to the Teams' Page
Last Year's Team History
Team History from Two Years Ago
The Mail Room
The MUN Briefing Book Library
Go to Al-Bayan Bilingual

KFSAC 2000

BBS improved its performance slightly over the previous years at this event. KFSAC selected two BBS students as student officers. Despite not having those two students available for countries, BBS had about as much effectiveness as the previous year with probably three schools, ASK, KES, and AIS all significantly better than BBS, making BBS about the fourth best school out of a dozen total.

BBS once again earned the right to have an SC permanent member, in this case the United Kingdom. In addition, BBS also represented Tunisia, a non-permanent member. BBS also had the privelege to represent Sri Lanka, a country of high local importance, as well as Vietnam, a reputed "bad boy country."

In an event marred by out-of-character resolutions and unrealistic alliances, BBS can claim to having made the "speech of the day," not once but thrice. First, the UK's right of reply condeming Myanmar certainly drew the world's attention. Second, BBS's speech on the last resolution, by Vietnam, probably rates as one of the most humorous, but in character, speeches by a delegation. Vietnam complained of US attempts at "cultural pollution," and started to give homosexuality as an example before laughter finished the speech. Finally, the UK ended the event on a bang by explaining its veto of the "oh-so-nice" solution proposed by the other nations in the crisis because it involved the US buying drugs. Like the UK's first speech or hate, you'll certainly remember it!

Lobbying and merging: Maryem, Sara, Adel, Nada, Moh'd, Sukaina, and Nada

Tunisia, the UK, and Vietnam consult: Rakan, Nasser, and both Hamads.

Issues at KFSAC MUN

Security Council
1. Equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council
2. Security problems in: Central Africa (DR Congo). West Africa; Kashmir; MYanmar, and the former Yugoslavia

Human Rights Commission
1. Promotion and protection of the rights of children and youth
2. Implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women including elimination of the trafficking in women and girls
3. The human rights and welfare of indigenous peoples
4. The human rights and welfare of migrant workers

Disarmament Commission
I. Measures to improve the effective implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction
2. The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and in Central and South Asia
3. International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space
Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security

Environment Commission
1· The management of water resources on a national and international level
2. Prohibition of the dumping of radioactive and toxic wastes
3. Protection of the global climate for present and fUture generations of mankind
4. Control of the research, development and production of genetically modified foods

Social Commission
1. Globalisation and interdependence
2. Measures to improve the care and safety of refugees, returnees, and displaced people
3. Return and restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin
4. Strengthening of international cooperation to study, mitigate, and minimize the consequences of natural disasters


Two BBS students served as officers as KFSAC. They made the following comments about their experiences

Nabil Al Khaled, Deputy Chair of the Disarmament Commission

At KFSAC, I acted as a member of the Secretariat, being the Deputy Chair of the Disarmament Commission. As a chair of the commission, I was responsible not only for administering the conference, but also using methods which induce debate. Throughout the conference, many delegates were active in the debate, while others were not. My co-chair and I were responsible balancing between ensuring that all delegates abide by formal and encouraging delegates to participate in the debate. Being a chair required diligence and maturity, without which the conference would not have been a success.

Saad Al Ghawas, Deputy Chair of the Environmental Commission

I can still remember waiting outside the officer interview office at AIS on that Thursday morning so long ago. I was wearing shorts and a T-shirt, hadn’t written my interview essay, and had not done any research on current affairs or MUN policy prior to the interview. In fact I had only known that I wanted to apply for a position in the KFSAC secretariat only two days before. Nevertheless about a month later I was in my full suit, looking for someone to put my tie on for me because I still can’t tie a tie, with a piece of pizza in my hands.

I decided along with my co-chair to employ a fairly lenient and informal attitude at the first meeting to help calm the frayed nerves of some of the newer delegates. Before long we were through a couple of resolutions and the delegates were polite and formal although we did not force the formal atmosphere. The position of Deputy Chairman was an honor and responsibility that I put much of my energy into and the result was my contribution to a successful MUN event.

Country By Country Highlights


The Republic of Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan Delegation
Social/Ambassador: Nouf Al Fraih (click here to read the ambassadoress's briefing book)
Disarmament/Vice-Ambassador: Hessa Malallah
HR: Nada Abduljader
Environment: Sarah Al Dukair

Sri Lanka


ENVIRONMENT: Sarah Al Dukair

Sri Lanka was basically participating in many ways in the environment commission. It had given several speeches and points of information. In the GA, the environment delegate did not have the chance to actively participate because there was a hot competition between numerous delegates. In return Sri Lanka did not prove it presence in the GA due to not choosing Sri Lanka in saying a speech or simply asking a point of information.

HUMAN RIGHTS: Nada Al Abduljader

In KFSAC Model United Nations, we were the Republic of Sri Lanka. I was in the commission of Human Rights. I was very active in asking questions for all the debated resolutions. I had supportive questions and attacking questions. We debated 5 resolutions in two days. I spoke 7 times the first day, and 5 times the second, which were between points of information, and speech for/against the resolutions. I also spoke in time for open debate since I had no chance of speak previously. I was so lucky in my commission. I had delegates yield the floor to me and chairs calling on me. The funny thing that we were about six delegates in Human Rights Commission that were speaking all the time, since the rest had no idea of what’s going around, I was one of those six. I once objected on going to voting procedure because I wanted to speak against the resolution, and the chair wouldn’t let me because I spoke too much, so by my objection, I got the right to speak, and the chairs had no choice to call on me or not. Sri Lanka’s policy on the issues of human rights rose among all


Sri Lanka was active in the disarmament commission. It had voiced out its comments and points of information over 7 times during the whole session. In the GA, Sri Lanka’s disarmament ambassador was granted only one point of information. Sri Lanka was not granted anymore opportunities to speak or voice its opinions. Because of that, Sri Lanka had been almost silent throughout the Genera Assembly meeting. Sri Lanka was with the resolution that was presented by the Russian Federation and co-signed by Sierra Leon. Sri Lanka had spoken for that resolution in the commission’s meeting. Because of the chairs enabling Sri Lanka numerous opportunities to talk, Sri Lanka only talked once in the General Assembly.


Sri Lanka (click here to read the ambassadoress's briefing book) was VERY active in the social committee. Sri Lanka wasn’t that successful in Lobbying and Merging, but it turned out to be a co-submitter and some clauses of my resolution were adapted. However, Sri Lanka was REALLY successful in the Social Committee. Sri Lanka gave many speeches some for and some against resolutions. Also, Sri Lanka actively participated in making points of information. Sri Lanka played a really active and memorable part in the Social committee since it is a small country. However, Sri Lanka made its point and opinions clear, and made sure everyone noticed that Sri Lanka "exists."

In the General Assembly, however, Sri Lanka was only granted one speech and about 3 or 4 points of information. Sri Lanka raised it’s placard every single time, it also sent a note to the chair. Even so, Sri Lanka was only granted points of information.


The People's Republic of Vietnam

The Vietnamese Delegation
Human Rights/Ambassador: Tareq Al Rubei (click here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
Social: Besma Al Mutawa
Disarmament: Fay Al Tukhaim
Environment: Hamad Al Saleh




Vietnam is honored and had a great time and impact in the KFSAC MUN . Vietnam did not co-submitted with any country in the resolution because it has many enemies. Vietnam did that because it has many enemies and want revenge and to get back at them for what they did. Vietnam was with the resolution that helped it country in any way to make it better. Vietnam had a chance in getting its revenge on the USA it took al of the USA’s weaknesses in its people and threw it right on their faces. Vietnam had a great experience in the KFSAC MUN and did better just like it promised to do in the up coming MUN’s. Even though the chair didn’t allow Vietnam to ask more that a limited amount of questions in the whole debate.

SOCIAL: Besma Al Mutawa



In MUN KFSAC 2000, I served as a proud ambassador of Vietnam (click here to read the ambassador's briefing book) . I was part of the Human Rights Committee. Before the event we were asked to do a briefing book about our country including: country profile, policy statements, and a resolution. Even though the briefing book was a very disturbing task I realized throughout the event that I would not performed as well if I did not do the briefing book. The information from the briefing book was a strong groundwork for most of my arguments. The first day was Lobbying and merging, where it was the first time the delegates see each other. In Human Rights as I remember there were 3 tables filled with ASK students who worked together in one resolution. For us BBS students we too gathered around not knowing what to do. Then as we knew other delegates we started our lobbying and merging. I merged with Tunisia, or Tunisia merged with me. We had more than 16 signatures from the delegates of other schools. I should point out that our SriLankan BBS delegate was extremely helpful in lobbying and merging for our resolution. We spent the rest of the day in the computer lab trying to edit and come up with the best resolution.

The second day was the Opening Speeches. As an ambassador I had prepared a killer speech; a speech that would offend 50% of the delegates in the Auditorium. I said my speech and felt good about it. The next day I served in the Human Rights Committee. We were discussing which resolution would be debated. Vietnam had its presence in every debate, I have had the floor 5 times and asked 4 points of information. At times the debate was really hot and at other times it was very boring.

Then there was the General Assembly the final day. In the GA it was harder to get recognized, we were in the back rows. We raised our placards most of the time. Fay stated a couple of points of information. I spoke when they called on Vietnam about the Yugoslav resolution. Then they switched our places and we were placed in the front rows. As the social resolution was being debated Hamed Al Saleh and I prepared a crushing speech. We intended to make a scene of it. When we were called Hamed rised and preformed his speech. Our speech was rude, intimidating, and out of protocol, but we really enjoyed it.


The Republic of Tunisia

The Tunisian Delegation

Security Council/Ambassador: Adel Al Omar (click here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
Human Rights/Vice-Ambassador: Ghazi Al Sharhan
Social: Rakan Al Bahar
Disarmament: Nasser Al Shaya
Environment: Abdullah Al Asousi



ENVIRONMENT: Abdullah Al Asousi

Tunisia played an important rule in KFSAC 2000. especially in the Environment Commission . First in lobbying and merging, I talked to many people and convinced them to sign for my resolution on banning genetically modified foods (GMFs), especially when the delegate of Nigeria didn’t know to if he must sign or not, and I convinced him that he had farmers and farmers don’t want GMFs, and it was stated in my resolution with a proof. Eventually my resolution was approved with twelve signatures and no one changed anything in it, not even a s ingle letter. In the day of debating resolutions, I made a speech on a resolution. I was for it because Pakistan was my co-submitter and I promised him I’ll be for his resolution if he talked well in mine. Before I spoke on his resolution, I realized that many were against his resolution, so when I spoke I said that it was a good resolution except for a few mistakes, so instead of being against it, why not amend it. I also asked some point of information, and I was pleased with one on the dumping of toxic wastes. Therefore, when I made my point of information like a speech, so I said: Why is the honorable delegate for this resolution when it has many unclear parts like… I was also pleased when the other GMF resolution that asked for studying it was trashed. Everyone whom I convinced in lobbying and merging trashed the resolution, and eventually it failed by an overwhelming majority. On the next day, which was on debating the resolutions that passed Tunisia spoke a lot of times and I spoke once. I spoke on the toxic waste resolution that I didn’t get a chance to trash it in the environment committee. I spoke on almost every clause in it and said its vague parts. However, because of the silly rule that countries can’t change their vote unless there is a reason, many delegations voted for it because they were afraid of changing their positions. In conclusion, Tunisia did a great job at KFSAC 2000.

DISARMAMENT: Nasser Al Shaya

I, as the honourable delegate of Tunisia in the disarmament committee, strongly believe that I was a vital part of the delegation simply because the efforts that I put in to prepare for the event were up to the standards wanted. I overcame the fear of public speaking and simultaneously decreased the anxiety level in my body to be more focused and appear much confident. At the event, my attempts at lobbying and merging were successful to the utmost perfection where I gathered fifteen co-signers that liked my resolution. At the commission, I had a lot of speeches made and points of information that changed nearly all the delegates perspectives on the debated issue, but alongside to that productivity was my aim that I fortunately reached. Finally I would just like to add the fact that I was a co-submitter for a resolution that would have certainly passed if the delegates of a fellow school did not act out of character and went against their policies.

SOCIAL: Rakkan Al Bahar

Rakan Al-Bahar, 12-A This year at KFSAC 2000, I had the pleasure of representing Tunisia as the representative in the social commission. First of all, I would like to thank my ambassador Adel al-Omar for the countless hours we spent together aiming at resolving the issue of desertification in Tunisia and the world. The event was quite fun, because we had the privilege of participating in an MUN event close to home, in Kuwait, at the American International School (AIS). I made friends with a lot of people and gained an experience in which I feel my peers hardly experience. I don’t regret participating in MUN this year, and I encourage any student who’s willing to gain a new, different, active, and interesting experience to participate in this event. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Daniel Fruit for everything he has helped me accomplish this year, and my friends for making our MUN trips as crazy, fun, and memorable as ever.


I think that I did a really good job in representing my country, Tunisia, at KIFSAC. I had a very strong start. From the earliest minutes of the first day, I started a very impressive process of “Lobbying and Merging” with many people from different schools. We were really looking forward to come up with a solid final resolution. I WAS THE MAIN SUBMITTER! In other words, my resolution was the BASE resolution. However, it didn’t make it, because of some changes that the delegate of Sierra Lion made to the resolution. These changes included forming a new Committee for “a problem” while there is already a special Committee to deal with it. However, I didn’t give up. In the Human Rights Committee, I spoke many times on multiple resolutions. I also gave a couple of speeches and a point of information in the General Assembly. All of this allowed me to confirm Tunisia’s policy towards the resolutions and it also had an authoritarian effect on the positions of other countries by the help of my improving debating skills.


(click here to read the ambassador's briefing book)


The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The British Delegation
Disarmament/Ambassador: Mustafa Malaki (click here to read the ambassador's briefing book)
Security Council/Vice-Ambassador: Mohammad Fakhral-Deen
Social: Maryem Al Hamad
Human Rights: Hamad Sultan
Environment: Sukaina Fakhral-Deen

The United Kingdom


ENVIRONMENTAL: Sukaina Fakhral-Deen

In KFSAC, it was the second day when I really had excessive force and I was really aggressive. We were just starting to debate a new resolution, it was about an issue that I wrote about monitoring the GMF’s, unfortunately it was against my policy because it didn’t want to control the GMF’s. Thus, I attacked it, at the beginning it wasn’t so good. But, after the break I trashed the resolution by one question only, that question was “Does the honorable delegate not realize that this resolution doesn’t mention anything about controlling the GMF’s?” His response was “no comment,” because he didn’t know either.

HUMAN RIGHTS: Hamad Sultan

The United Kingdom played an important role at KFSAC-MUN. It co-submitted a resolution but unfortunatly, it was not passed by the General Assembly. The issue that The United Kingdom cared about the most was in the Human rights division was the rights of the youth, as everyone knows children are our future. This was one of the main reasons that The United Kingdom took extreme care in the decision but after a lot of hard work The United Kingdom decided that it was a well organized resolution and voted for it. The delegate of The United Kingdom in the human rights division asked three questions and spoke two speeches. In my opinion The delgate of the United Kingdom that was in the human rights division played a great role at KFSAC-MUN!

SOCIAL: Maryam Al Hamad

The social committee debated 6 resolutions. There were 4 topics to be debated. The topics are either on Globalization and Interdependence, measures to improve the care and safety of refugees, returnees, and displaced people, the return and restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin, and the strengthening of international cooperation to study, mitigate, and minimize the consequences of natural disasters. all those topics are important to the United Kingdom. The resolution on the measures to improve the care and safety of refugees, returnees, and displaced people was the resolution voted on to be debated at the General Assembly. The main submitters of this resolution were Austria and they themselves should be against the care and safety of refugees. The United Kingdom regretfully states that it was against this resolution because it was submitted by the wrong country, which makes the resolution useless.

SECURITY COUNCIL: Mohammed Fakhral-Deen

On the first day of the event, the UK made a right of reply to the speech made by Myanmar. The UK mainly expressed the point that it does not recognize Myanmar’s military regime as a country, and neither should any country present in the GA.

On the first resolution, submitted by the Russian Federation, (?!), the resolution did not interfere with British presence in Sierra Leone and the delegate, (of Sierra Leone), expressed full content with British presence and mentioned the fact that the UK was the active player in the region, since it “saved” Sierra Leone. On the second resolution, concerning problems in Jammu and Kashmir, the UK argument and veto revolved around the unjustness and partiality that would be present if, according to the resolution, a referendum were to be held in Kashmir, for many Hindus are being forced to flee Kashmir. On the third resolution, UK later abstained on the resolution which was vetoed by one or two SC permanent members, (I don’t remember which ones), and the resolution failed.

As for the fourth resolution, on Myanmar, France vetoed it and was “out of character”. Furthermore, there were only two countries opposed to it, (apart from France), and a couple of more countries abstained. all of the remaining countries voted for it, (including the UK and two other veto powers). There was only one abstention from a veto power, and France was the only veto power that decided to exercise its veto. The final resolution, when the resolution was discussed in the SC, it was amended to include a clause that gave GA countries the power to pick SC members, (and possibly to alter permanent members. China did not oppose to it, neither did two other veto powers?! If the US had really represented US POLICY, then the UK would not have had to veto the resolution. But the US abstained, most other countries were for it, and the UK had to veto.

In the crisis situation, the US and the ROK were totally NOT representing their policies. The US, under intense pressure, (peer pressure), from other countries, agreed to the full withdrawal of ALL US troops from ROK. Furthermore, China wanted the missiles in Cuba, (of Chinese origin), to be returned to China and tried various ways to get them opposed by the UK. The UK suggested that the IAEA be in charge of the investigation, and that it submit a report to the UN, China wanted a report to be submitted to China and China only. The UK did not agree. Finally, at the very end, the UK managed to convince China that the OPCW would complete an investigation of the missiles, and would later submit a report to the UN SC only. And all UN SC and GA members would have access to the report, including China; (I really would retire if I were him?!) The final point, which forced the UK to veto, was the agreement to pay Cuba in return for the drugs the US confiscated in Miami. The UK firmly believed that drug traffickers should be penalized and that confiscated drugs should not be compensated by money to drug traffickers. The UK reaffirmed its belief that Cuba should NOT be paid for trafficking drugs. The US should have vetoed.Throughout the crisis situation, the UK was left alone, abandoned by supposed allies and rivals, the US and France, respectively. The UK was dumbfounded when the ROK demanded the withdrawal of the US! After the final speech I made, many delegates, SC and GA, came up to me and supported my point of view.


The United Kingdom (click here to read the ambassador's briefing book) was the most active delegate in the Disarmament Commission of the year 2000 KFSAC MUN at AIS. I, Mustafa Malaki, acted as ambassador of the UK delegation, and participated in the discussion both in the form of speeches and points of information. I made 5 speeches and 8 points of information. None of the other delegates in the commission spoke as many times. I went against all resolutions except the one I had co-signed on. I even went against a resolution co-submitted by one of my schoolmates, something that was very rare at this year’s event. My decisions did not involve any personal bias, for I acted according to my exact policy and did not allow any other delegate to sway my stance to his or her favor. Fortunately, I was the second so-signer of a resolution, and it passed in the commission. The next day in the General Assembly, the floor was yielded to me and I spoke in favor of our resolution, and since it was supported by 4 major powers, there was a strong chance for it to get passed. I also spoke against a resolution from the Social Commission. Every time a resolution on a different commission was getting debated, I worked very closely with my delegates, helping them make speeches and points of information. Overall, in the General Assembly, we made three speeches and several points of information, although our placard was up all the time. Out of the five big countries, the United Kingdom proved to be the best and most experienced.

Have a comment? Please email me if you want to join our mailing list or have comments.

This page hosted by GeoCities