represented by Jakob Ache and Dennis Guhl

The General Assembly Second Committee (GA 2nd) as one of the main committees of the General Assembly is dealing with economic and financial issues. All of the 192 United Nations Member States are represented there. GA 2nd is a resolution writing committee. Before a draft resolution becomes a resolution both the delegations represented in GA 2nd and afterwards the delegations of the GA Plenary have to adopt it either by acclamation or voting. Next to the classical economic issues, GA 2nd is dealing with special regional groups such as the Least Developed Countries and the Landlocked Developed Countries as well as with topics concerning sovereignty, especially those of the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied territory.

The latter issue was not a part of the NMUN agenda that was proposed by the General Assembly:

1. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for Development;

2. Promoting Low-Carbon Economic Growth in the Developing World;

3. Protecting Developing Countries during the Current Financial Crisis.

It was no surprise that it was of paramount importance to the majority of countries to debate the consequences of the economic crisis, especially for developing countries. However, when it came to discussing the agenda order during the first meeting, a different approach was revealed of two groups, consisting mainly in developing states on the one hand and developed countries on the other: The developed states focused on long-term recovery and future economic growth and thus mostly favoured topic 2 to be discussed first. However, most developing nations argued that they favour a discussion about immediate protection of their economies, struggling and suffering from financial crisis, although not being responsible for it. Consequently, most of these countries favoured Topic 3 to be discussed first.

We agreed with the EU Member States and most other developed nations to vote on the agenda topic order of 2-3-1. However, there could not be reached a consensus with groups like the G77, leading to a formal vote on the agenda order. At the end, an absolute majority, mainly consisting of developing and emerging nations, voted for the order of 3-1-2, reflecting their wish to explicitly talk about the implications arising of the financial crisis. Although we voted against it because we were convinced that it was more important to set sustainable foundations for long-term economic growth we were still content with this vote since Spain always showed a strong responsibility for supporting and protecting developing countries.

After having set the agenda order, we immediately started working on the same evening. Together with a diverse group of developing and developed countries, including for example the Delegations of Germany and Malawi, we drafted a resolution titled ‘Pillars of Diversification’. It outlined a way for developing nations on how to become less aid-dependent by diversifying both their economy and the development co-operation. We insisted especially on including an intensification of micro-credit programmes and a special focus on women as an especially vulnerable group. The Spanish National Micro-Credit Concession Fund, also putting emphasis on the importance of supporting women, is especially mentioned in the text. Furthermore, it included an encouragement to apply the principles of the Financial Stability Board for developing countries to increase accountability and transparency in financial institutions in order to promote stability. After many hours of discussion with other delegations and many re-edited versions, the ‘Pillars of Diversification’ draft finally passed as Resolution GA2/Res/1/2.

But, of course, in the three days between passing the agenda order and voting on the draft resolutions, much more happened that can only be outlined here. On the first day of session, several groups of delegates eagerly started writing working papers that could eventually become draft resolutis. It was noticeable that, although regional groups did meet and talked about common strategies, the different working groups were rather diverse. Often, there was no clear cut between developing and developed nations or between regional blocks. We supported this since we did not want several groups of homogeneous countries to work against each other. Nonetheless, representing Spain as the current EU Presidency, we still wanted to bring together the EU countries in order for them to know what everyone was working on and, if necessary, to talk about a position all Member States could live with. We saw it as our responsibility that, although the EU Delegates worked in different groups, there would be no conflicting situation between the Member States.

During all three negotiation days, the time used for informal caucus by far exceeded the formal debate. And although in formal debate the delegations emphasised very diverse aspects, during informal caucus there was often a high degree of agreement between the delegations, which we found very constructive. Hardly any delegation doubted that the developing nations are hit disproportionally hard by the financial crisis and that special protection as well as co-operation by the developed nations is urgently needed. The Millennium Development Goals played an important role since their fulfillment is severely endangered by the global crisis. The discussions and draft resolutions offered several different ways to achieve this goal and also to make financial crises less probable in the future.

Another important topic that was discussed and found its way into many resolutions was micro-finance. There was a broad agreement that developing countries need to be less dependent from the global markets in order to be less vulnerable in cases of financial crises in the future. Micro-credits are a very promising way to get closer to this goal – and Spain is one of the leading countries in this field, being the second largest bilateral donor of micro-credits worldwide. We thus supported the many efforts made and worked together with other countries, especially Italy, to even work out a new fund, the Infrastructure and Microloan Assistance for Growing Economies Fund (IMAGE Fund). This proposal was eventually accepted as Resolution GA2/Res/1/8 and also explicitly includes the gender issue interlinked with micro-credits.

Additionally, long-term proposals, especially concerning an improved world trading system and opening paths for sustainable development, were a further emphasis of the GA 2nd work. The co-operation between regional trading blocks played an important role as a way to both increase growth and to become less vulnerable. Concerning sustainable growth, the promotion of green technology as well as technology transfer to the developing countries were widely supported. Resolution GA2/Res/1/1 explicitly deals with the topic of sustainable development and encourages member countries to expand the Copenhagen Accord and improve the Carbon Disclosure Mechanism. In this context, it was possible for us to promote the SEED Initiative (Supporting Entrepreneurs for Sustainable Development) of which Spain is an important partner.

Reflecting Spain's priorities we wrote a working paper concerned with the topic of tax evasion, being responsible for large losses of financial revenue in the developing countries. However, it also severely affects the developed nations, providing them less money that could be spent on development aid. Furthermore, tax evasion often goes along with an evasion of regulation, making it probable that fighting tax evasion would also promote financial stability. After drafting a working paper, editing it and finding supporters, the chair unfortunately did not accept the working paper as a draft resolution, calling it too specific. We did not agree with this opinion due to the immense problems tax evasion places upon both developing and developed countries today, but we had to accept the ruling of the chair.

On the last day of session, we got the opportunity to speak in formal debate, trying to put as many aspects important to us into a statement of only 60 seconds. Shortly after this, voting procedure began and out of twelve draft resolutions ten passed. Unfortunately, none could be accepted by acclamation, but only few countries voted against the resolutions that passed and there was no confrontation between blocks. Since the time ran out, it was not possible for the Committee to start discussing the second agenda item.

At last, we could be very content with the outcome of the Committee. Many new, important, and interesting ideas have been debated to protect developing nations during the financial crisis and we managed to include the position of Spain and the EU into many discussions and resolutions. We hope that these ideas will make a difference for the many people suffering from the economic situation.