Crisis Committee: The Free Flow Drama Committee

CC delegates during unmoderated caucus.

On Tuesday (9/4), the Crisis Committee greeted another day in the past. The went back to September 16, 1960, the council enacted the day when they finally agreed to further discuss the cease-fire agreement. Yet, as a crisis committee in general, the countries were thrown into shamble with a big crisis that would challenge the delegates capability to stay firm and solve the continuously-coming problem. 
 

On September 16, 1960, the day begun with the council attempted to address the need to start a cease-fire agreement. It took longer than expected to form the mechanism. But eventually, the UN Secretary-General took it upon himself and flew to Joddotvile to further discussed the cease-fire agreement. 


While the council was so focused on debating and was very uptight with their opinion, a crisis arise. A special envoy from the UN and head of Interpol had abruptly interrupted the council's meeting. The bad news came crashing down as hard as the plane of the UN Secretary-General crashed. The Secretary-General was confirmed to be dead—chaos couldn't help but erupt. 
 

With the vacuum of power, UN Operations on Congo (UNOC) chose a bold move to kill Gendarmes captives. Some support UNOC to retreat and drive the situation into haywire. The council concluded that to retain order within UNOC and solving the crisis the answer was to elect a new secretary. To made it as a ‘veto' decision that was legit, they asked the permanent members of the security council to vote on who to choose. 
 

The decision was seen as an act of foolishness for the council seemed to be confused about what the goal was about in the ad-hoc council—plus, the fact that the council had not taken any concrete action. With no directive, the country plummeted into catastrophe. 
 

UN Security Council (UNSC) gave the biggest warning to the council to press the matter of the unproductivity to an end. The UNSC has decided that if by 02.00 PM on September 20, 1960, the council still had not produced any committee directive, the UNSC would disband them. 
 

With the warning, every country decided to act more calmly. While they were discussing their own opinion, the chilling tension from countries that still grasped firmly upon their beliefs still lingered in the air, that resulted in four committee directives. 
 

With several options presented upon the council, one would think one directive actually got the chance to pass the motion. All hopes vanished in the hands of the country that rigidly hold on to their stance. Those countries, namely Nigeria, Poland, Ghana, Sweden, and China still found flaws or could not accept the fact that the directive contained something against their principle. 
 

However, if the council would like to recall what Canada said during the GSL, that the last resort sometimes could be the only resort, then those five countries actually could loosen up and accept some points. The chairs also strongly suggested the council used only one committee directive, but that only drove the council into another corner. 
 

The next day came by and the council actually succeeded in submitting their one last committee directive. The hopes were high that this directive could actually be got the green light and, indeed, pass. 
 

Yet, again the five countries with their firm belief hold their ground and were causing the motion to fail. In a frenzy, each country started to accuse each other of their past bad deeds. This failure, in the end, brought the disbandment of the council. The council closed with a bitter aftertaste. (NewsArt/Yumna Wijdan Abidah)

Supported by:

Sponsored by:

Media Partners: