By: Katelyn Jamoul, Student Reporter*

Problems emerged in GA Plenary as Representatives expressed concerns over Topic Two, Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin, some felt like much of the debate occurred behind closed doors. After interviewing Member States, that concern turned out to be a general feeling throughout the entire committee.

Many felt undermined when almost completed draft resolutions were immediately presented to the body right at the start of the switch to Topic Two. Representative Sammy Amier of the Russian Federation commented ”A draft resolution was basically done at the start of the switch to Topic Two, and the sponsors of said resolution repeatedly urged other delegations to sponsor the resolution even though we just switched to Topic Two and have yet had the chance to read through all the working draft resolutions.By then there was already a resolution finished with more than 35% of sponsors, and many delegations felt excluded from the collaborative process.” 

Some Members were approached during Topic One to discuss Topic Two, but felt the current topic on the floor, discussing humanitarian aid, was a more pressing issue; therefore, it was an inappropriate time to talk about Topic Two. This was taken by some representatives as an unwillingness to discuss or collaborate with them leaving many representatives feeling that it pushed the line of diplomatic discourtesy. Representatives Eli Blair and Diyora Rakhmonova of Japan said, ”We believe that not all member states have conducted themselves with respect and diplomatic courtesy towards other member states. We urge that these aforementioned nations pause and reassess so that they can refocus their attention to international cooperation.” 

A source wishing to remain anonymous said, ”We are the General Assembly of the United Nations. Each delegation has a unique perspective that adds great depth to discussions about issues. It is concerning…that a resolution was drafted without much debate, if any at all.” During suspensions of the meeting, Representatives discussing Topic Two were physically removing themselves from the room. This posed a challenge that  Representatives Blair and Rakhmonova of Japan characterized: “By leaving the room and dividing the committee into two groups you are actively working against international cooperation which is in direct conflict with the goal of both the State of Japan as well as the United Nations as a whole.”
To clarify, a vote that took place on Saturday on Consideration of Agenda Topics, asking the body to move to Topic Area One resulted in 31/39/5. This is to show that almost half of the body decided to focus on topic two instead of collaborating with the committee as a whole for either topic. Representative Sammy Amier of Russia said, “The move made by those delegations was especially unfair considering that some delegations only have one representative within the body instead of two, and single delegates can only focus on one thing at a time.” Another anonymous source commented ”We also believe that due to the rushed and closed off nature of the drafting of the resolution, many clauses do not add anything substantive to the goal of returning cultural artifacts to their proper owners and may actively hinder certain people’s strive towards reclaiming their culture. They have undermined the purpose of the General Assembly as a deliberative body.” Despite the controversies that occurred during the last couple of sessions, GA plenary, as a body, has prevailed and is now working to pass a resolution on Topic Two.

_{The views and opinions expressed in this article were part of a simulation of the United Nations held from 18 to 21 November 2023 and do not reflect the views and opinions of the American Model United Nations Conference, American Model United Nations International, LLC., *Wichita State University or the governing bodies of the states mentioned in the article.}