Secession Stirs Division in TFI
The Territories and Foreign Intervention committee convened early Friday night, November 7th, to discuss the legality of secession. According to chair Ben Zuegel, the committee had “expunged into two distinct camps”, with one group supporting the legality of secession led by the delegation of Egypt and the other opposing the legality of secession led by the delegation of Ukraine.
Yet despite this polarization, there appears to be some gray area. The delegation of India spoke of a “diplomatic mediator between the [seceding] country and the United Nations” and suggested that secession be dealt with on a “case by case basis”. However, the delegation of Ghana, apparently staunchly in the anti-secession camp of the delegation of Ukraine, asserted that “Secession should not even be considered”.
In contrast, the delegation of Egypt, working in conjunction with Jordan and North Korea on a working paper, remarked that “people who live on a land should decide if it’s independent or not”. When questioned by the delegate from Latvia whether “disunity and tension” would be prevalent in seceding countries, the delegate from Egypt suggested that one country united on paper would be more rife with discord than two separate, autonomous states. The delegation of Jordan described the subgroup’s stance as one “supporting the oppressed in favor of their secession”.
Chair Zach Kier remarked that “Despite some technical difficulties, the delegates are analyzing a very complex situation”. In fact, the very complex topic of secession leads to some tough questions regarding how secessionist states should be treated and on what basis states should be allowed to secede. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the decision reached by the TFI committee will be colored by many different viewpoints and a long night of debate.
The Territories and Foreign Intervention committee convened early Friday night, November 7th, to discuss the legality of secession. According to chair Ben Zuegel, the committee had “expunged into two distinct camps”, with one group supporting the legality of secession led by the delegation of Egypt and the other opposing the legality of secession led by the delegation of Ukraine.
Yet despite this polarization, there appears to be some gray area. The delegation of India spoke of a “diplomatic mediator between the [seceding] country and the United Nations” and suggested that secession be dealt with on a “case by case basis”. However, the delegation of Ghana, apparently staunchly in the anti-secession camp of the delegation of Ukraine, asserted that “Secession should not even be considered”.
In contrast, the delegation of Egypt, working in conjunction with Jordan and North Korea on a working paper, remarked that “people who live on a land should decide if it’s independent or not”. When questioned by the delegate from Latvia whether “disunity and tension” would be prevalent in seceding countries, the delegate from Egypt suggested that one country united on paper would be more rife with discord than two separate, autonomous states. The delegation of Jordan described the subgroup’s stance as one “supporting the oppressed in favor of their secession”.
Chair Zach Kier remarked that “Despite some technical difficulties, the delegates are analyzing a very complex situation”. In fact, the very complex topic of secession leads to some tough questions regarding how secessionist states should be treated and on what basis states should be allowed to secede. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the decision reached by the TFI committee will be colored by many different viewpoints and a long night of debate.