The Security Council has been discussing the insurgency in the Maghreb region, focusing on
the causes, consequences, and possible solutions. Morocco strongly emphasizes that while
many still talk about colonialism, the real issue is the lack of concrete solutions. They argue
that Algeria has failed to control the rise of terrorist groups, allowing conditions that can lead
to insurgencies. The delegation acknowledges its own challenges but insists that nations must
develop governmental strategies to counter groups like the GSPC. The country is actively
working against terrorism, though it criticizes delegations such as Algeria for not addressing
these threats effectively.
Algeria, on the other hand, defends itself, arguing that external countries, including the
United States and France, have interfered in African affairs without producing real results.
They highlight the failure of past peacekeeping missions, such as MINUSMA, and claim that
Algeria has been a pioneer in regional solutions. They argue that achieving stability is not just
about security but also involves geopolitical, political, and economic factors. While
acknowledging some criminal activity, Algeria insists that their situation has improved since
2015, with efforts to curb trafficking and insurgency.
Mauritania takes a more skeptical stance, stating that the United Nations has not been
effective in addressing the issue. They question how delegations can propose solutions
without having political stability in their own territories. The delegation argues that Africa
has suffered from external interference and that governments must listen to their people, so
they can get a general benefict. The delegation also talks about the violence in Africa and
claims, is often tied to religion and dissatisfaction with policies. The government should
ensure that people feel represented to prevent further insurgency.
China and Japan highlight the increase in human trafficking in North Africa, pointing out that
Algeria has been particularly ineffective in addressing the issue. They emphasize that while
Mauritania is relatively stable, surrounding nations struggle with organized crime and
terrorism. Both countries propose international cooperation, including military support if
necessary, to combat these problems.
France redirects the discussion, insisting that identifying the groups responsible for instability
is crucial. The delegation criticize governments that fail to protect their own citizens , and
afirm that the state must take a more proactive role in addressing the crisis. The UK raises
concerns about Mauritania’s strategies and questions how nations plan to maintain control
over their territories.
Niger takes a strong stance against international interference, arguing that African nations
should solve their own problems without external intervention. However, Portugal counters
this, stating that excluding European countries is a mistake and that outside support is
sometimes necessary. Italy agrees, arguing that migration from Africa to Europe has
contributed to security concerns, including terrorism. They believe stronger governance
structures are needed to give people opportunities and reduce instability.

Later in the debate the U.S. warns that military action might be necessary if the situation
worsens. Meanwhile, Morocco argues for action, asserting that the Western Sahara belongs to
them and that Algeria’s ongoing issues with terrorism pose a threat to Moroccan citizens.
Algeria, however, denies the terrorism accusations, stating that these claims are politically
motivated.
As the session progresses, Japan pushes for realistic solutions, emphasizing that no country
can solve the issue alone. Algeria raises concerns about neocolonialism, arguing that
political, military, and economic imperialism continue to affect Africa. They mention
AFRICOM’s influence and the failures of MINUSMA, stressing the need for African-led
solutions. Their proposed measures include strengthening regional security organizations,
researching terrorism’s root causes, and reducing external financial dependence.

Leaders Summit

The debate starts with Donald Trump introducing age discrimination, especially in people of older age. The president of France makes a presentation presenting his possible solutions to tackle the problem, using his country as an example and things that have worked for France in order to reduce this discrimination. The presentation focuses on physical and mentally disabled people. Other leaders (President of Nigeria and Brazil) also present their solutions, but with the focus of the last session of debate of the previous day (discrimination towards people with disabilities). Donald Trump also presents solutions. Within the solution, it agrees in common points with France; for example, education being a tool to eradicate this discrimination, while also advocating for international cooperation and the incorporation of other solutions made in previous presentations. Overall, most of the leaders who made presentations during this session agreed that education is key, although the presentations made by Anthony Albanese and the President of the Philippines concentrated on education only, while other leaders proposed the help of governments and NGOs. Putin is against the LGTBQ policies but supports the other policies. The president of India returns to the impact of social media on discrimination and proposes the creation of a Ministry of Social Media. Keir Starmer disagrees with the proposal and focus of education as the most effective solution for the problem; his arguments are that this may only be a long-term solution, while the problem should be tackled now. The leaders propose updating legislation policies while also arguing that there is underfunding for these NGOs that Macron was mentioning earlier.

The discussion of LGTBQ themes continues, especially for trans people. Different leaders place emphasis on the family background to stop racism. During this session of debate, various leaders propose solutions to fight discrimination in older generations; some mention that this mentality can be changed with the help of parent’s schools and campaigns. Putin rectifies his position against LGTBQ, the leaders decide to take lobby time in order to discuss more about what the press releases are going to be about. During this time, they also discuss NGOs and how this can play a part in the education proposals. The leaders divide within two groups, as some leaders don’t support LGTBQ. The group that supports LGTBQ also separates, resulting in three different press releases.

Donald Trump and President Ferdinand Marcos start presenting their press releases in which they mention some of the solutions proposed through the committee while not sacrificing their own beliefs (for example, Trump with the trans people and illegal immigrants); they also mention that politics should not be brought to the classroom. While Pedro Sánchez and the president of South Africa present their press release, which focuses on education and legislation. Then, Putin and Xin Jinping present the final press release, in which they include their solutions to the problem. For example, education and awareness campaigns, in which they also take into account education. Even though they propose these solutions, they maintain their stand regarding the LGTBQ community. Finally, there is a fourth press release, which is presented by the President of France and the United Kingdom, in which they talk about the change of legislation, strengthening the NGOs budget, and education as a key point to stop this discrimination.

After reading the press releases, they close the topic A and start with topic B, starting with each leader's opening speeches, introducing the topic of natural disasters and safety, advocating for international cooperation, and the creation of new mechanisms as they think that the responses are made too late, when the disaster has already happened and lives have been lost. Some leaders use as an example previous natural disasters

CICR

El debate sobre armas químicas, biológicas y nucleares estuvo marcado por diferentes
posturas entre los países, reflejando las tensiones históricas y geopolíticas en torno a la
proliferación y el control de estas armas de destrucción masiva. A lo largo de las sesiones,
las delegaciones presentaron argumentos sobre los riesgos, la necesidad de desarme y las
preocupaciones de seguridad nacional.
Desde el inicio, las potencias nucleares defendieron la posesión de su arsenal como un
mecanismo de disuasión. Estados como Estados Unidos y Rusia argumentaron que sus
capacidades nucleares garantizan la estabilidad global al evitar conflictos a gran escala. En
respuesta, delegaciones de países no nucleares,destacaron los riesgos de una nueva
carrera armamentista y abogaron por el fortalecimiento del Tratado de No Proliferación
Nuclear.
El uso de armas químicas y biológicas generó un intenso debate, especialmente en relación
con conflictos recientes. Las delegaciones discutieron casos como los ataques con gas
sarín en Siria y el envenenamiento de opositores políticos con agentes nerviosos. Naciones
como Francia y Alemania pidieron sanciones más severas para los responsables de estos
crímenes, mientras que Rusia y China señalaron la necesidad de pruebas verificables antes
de imponer medidas unilaterales.
Uno de los momentos más controvertidos ocurrió cuando la delegación de Irán denunció la
hipocresía de las potencias occidentales, señalando que Estados Unidos había utilizado
armas químicas en el pasado y que aún mantenía reservas de agentes biológicos. Esto
provocó una discusión, con la delegación estadounidense negando tales acusaciones y
desviando la conversación hacia la amenaza de programas secretos en otros países.
En cuanto a los tratados internacionales, la mayoría de las delegaciones coincidieron en la
importancia de fortalecer la Convención sobre Armas Biológicas y la Convención sobre
Armas Químicas. Sin embargo, hubo desacuerdos sobre los mecanismos de verificación y
sanción. Algunos países, propusieron la creación de un organismo independiente con
mayores facultades de inspección, mientras que otras naciones expresaron preocupaciones
sobre la soberanía y el posible uso político de estas inspecciones.
Al final del debate, se lograron algunos consensos parciales, como el compromiso de
reforzar los mecanismos de monitoreo de armas biológicas y mejorar la cooperación
internacional para prevenir su uso en conflictos. Sin embargo, las diferencias en torno al
desarme nuclear y las sanciones a países acusados de uso de armas químicas y biológicas
siguieron sin resolverse, reflejando los mismos dilemas que han afectado la diplomacia
mundial en este tema durante décadas.
Este debate evidenció la complejidad de la seguridad internacional y la dificultad de
alcanzar acuerdos efectivos cuando los intereses nacionales y estratégicos entran en juego.
Aunque no se logró una resolución definitiva, el intercambio de posturas permitió un análisis
profundo sobre el futuro del control de armas de destrucción masiva en el mundo.