21
AISG hosted its fourth iteration of RAMSMUN with schools attending from Utahloy International School of Guangzhou (UISG) and Canadian International School (CIS). While many delegates were involved in fruitful debates throughout the 3-day conferences, many of our AISG students also got to be chairs.
General Assembly (GA) Assistant President Chair
As a first-time chair in a conference, even though previously delegating in GA before, it was a nerve-wracking experience having control of the debate and the committee. Despite our committee being relatively small with around 16 delegates, being a GA chair was an absolute honor.
Day 1:
We began after school with lobbying and opening speeches. Lobbying is a process for delegates to form blocs (groups) focusing on their chosen agenda (global issue) to create a resolution. As a chair, this was most likely one of our calmest days as it was mainly for the delegates to form the resolutions we would be debating for the next three days. However, we quickly encountered a problem during the opening speeches as we found an imbalance of delegates and their chosen agendas. We had to make tough decisions on the first day, asking delegates to move to other agendas, especially if their country was prevalent on the agenda. Many delegates were reluctant at first, but it worked out for some as this decision was crucial to one of the delegates winning an award. That day, we only had agenda 3 to finish their resolution, so we still had quite a lot of work for delegates to finish for the next day. At this time, we assigned roles to chairs. We decided that the expert chairs (chairs who wrote their chair report on their chosen agenda) would be amendment chairs, and the others would be a tallying and speaking chair.
The 3 agendas that GA debated regarded femicide in Mexico, regulation of social media targeting in political campaigns and elections, and the proper disposal of nuclear waste.
Day 2/3:
Our two days of debate went by very quickly. We had a highly engaged group of delegates, with constant points of information (POIs), speeches, and amendments. Our amendment chair was always busy approving and denying numerous amendments. I distinctly remember the chair hardly ever getting a break, as they consistently received multiple amendments from the same delegates or lengthy, 3–5 page amendments that required careful review. Our admins were also bustling around the room, passing notes and amendments back and forth between the chair and the delegates. I gained a newfound appreciation and respect for my previous chairs at other conferences, especially those with over 50 delegates and a high volume of amendments.
The heated nature of some debates added to our challenges as chairs, with delegates occasionally telling others to “sit down” during POI responses. One reason for the active debating was that delegates often expressed personal values that overshadowed their countries’ official positions. In total, we received and addressed over 74 amendments, delivered 117 speeches, and recorded 278 POIs, which is quite an achievement for a committee of 16 delegates over a two-day conference.
It was very difficult for us chairs to decide awards, not only because there were a high number of delegates who were actively participating in debate, but because different delegates caught the attention of different chairs. It took us a long time to narrow it down to a few delegates and it ended up being the minor actions that delegates did throughout the weekend, beginning from the very first day, that we considered for honorable mention and best delegate. In fact, our decision for awards was not fully concrete until the last stretch of debate before lunch when one single action of a delegate put them out of the running for an award. Our best delegate award, contrary to many of the delegates’ opinions in our committee, was awarded because of their flexibility in changing agendas and constant participation. It was one of the more stressful moments being a chair on the last day.
World Health Assembly Deputy Assistant Chair
Although I have previously delegated in the WHA committee, this was my first time participating as a chair. The experience as a chair in RAMSMUN was exciting and overall very enjoyable.
Day 1:
Similar to GA, the President chair, Assistant chair and I decided to start bv briefly introducing ourselves to the delegates. Shortly after, we proceeded with opening speeches, when each delegate approached the podium to deliver a 1-minute speech about the agendas and their country’s stance. After opening speeches, we moved into lobbying time. We had the delegates form blocs based on the agendas they were focusing on. The agendas of the WHA this time were addressing the rising obesity rates in LEDCs (agenda one), mitigating the outbreak of infectious disease in Sub Saharan Africa (agenda two), and promoting access to healthcare for individuals without citizenship (agenda three). Each chair was responsible for monitoring the resolution-writing progress of the agenda that they specialized in. Because I wrote the chair report, a document providing an overview of the agenda, for agenda three, I was responsible for surveilling the bloc that was writing the resolution for it.
After about 3 hours of lobbying, we wrapped up for the day at around 6pm. At this time, no bloc had finished writing their resolution yet, so it was a pretty light day for us chairs.
Day 2/3:
On the second day of the conference, the delegates returned to continue writing their resolutions. We gave them a final couple of hours to finish up their resolutions and get them approved. I edited the resolution for agenda three before it was sent to the approval panel.
Debate started with the enthusiastic delegates looking eager to participate. Beforehand, the chairs and I had a discussion to decide who would do which role. The roles that the chairs have to do are to track participation on a tally sheet, guide the debate with verbal instructions, and approve amendments. We decided to switch roles for every resolution, and for the first resolution, I was responsible for tracking participation. Since all the delegates were energetic and engaged for this debate, I had to stay very focused to my task and track all the speeches, amendments, and points of inquiry (POIs). With the tally sheet open the whole time, it was remarkable how quick the tallies grew.
We finished debate on the first resolution a little after lunch and continued on to the next one. This time I was the speaking chair, and with my attention shifted a little bit more on the actual delegates, I noticed a few more things. At this point of the conference, the delegates seemed a lot more tired and they were not speaking as much. Using chairs discretion multiple times, I called on inactive delegates to make speeches. I also gave delegates one session of unscheduled break time in hopes of letting them regain back some energy. However, there were a couple consistent delegates that were still eager to speak. These delegates caught the attention of the chairs and would later be considered for awards.
On the third day, we finished debate on all three resolutions before lunch. At lunch time, the other chairs and I discussed who we would nominate for the Honorable Mention award, and the Best Delegate award. We ended up choosing the delegates that participated a good amount but also had speeches and POIs of high quality. We also talked with the other chairs and student officers to devise a plan for the Crisis.
Crisis:
On the final day of the conference, the atmosphere shifted dramatically after lunch as we faced a crisis. A crisis is a form of debate that involves no prior preparation, necessitating an urgent resolution. During this time, the GA and WHA committees combined. Our crisis involved the kidnapping of the chairs by Elon Musk’s cronies who were sent to Mars, which meant the Assistant Presidents (APs) and Deputy Assistant Presidents (DAPs) had to lead the debate. Delegates were tasked with crafting a resolution to rescue our chairs. To introduce the crisis o the delegates, the student officers organized a planned “kidnapping” of the presidents in front of the committee, complete with blinking lights executed by our admins and the sound of a blaring alarm.
The resolutions were nothing short of chaotic and entertaining, incorporating references to Beyoncé, Russian Spetsnaz units, and Kanye West throughout the debate discussions. The delegates seemed to be very interested in debate once the topic included references to pop culture and social media trends. One unique aspect of our combined crisis was that we had two delegates representing the USA and two representing China, among others. For the USA delegates, we introduced a unique innovation to the debate, proposed by another chair, where one delegate represented each of the two main political parties. This led to an entertaining debate, with delegates occasionally approaching the podium together.
Another memorable highlight from the crisis was an amendment that took up more than half of the allocated debate time on the resolution. This amendment proposed trading one of our admins for the chairs, which was a creative and amusing idea that helped create a lively and light-hearted atmosphere, contrasting with the otherwise intensity of the earlier debates.
Overall, RAMSMUN IV was a great success filled with memorable moments for both chairs and delegates.
Share
Print
