represented by Amira Jehia and Polyvios Pararas

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was founded in 1950 in order to support the mass of refugees, which was displaced by World War II. Initially established on a three-year mandate, the first major emergency when Soviet troops entered the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, proved its importance. Its necessity has never been questioned ever since. The UNHCR continuously grew, nowadays supporting 34.4 million people in 120 countries. The primary objective of the UNHCR is to secure the rights of these refugees. To this end the provision of asylum combined with the alternative options of voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement in a third country is of major importance to it. It further supports internally displaced and stateless people who suffer from the lack of citizenship and hence are denied basic human rights. Being a member of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Indicators, the UNHCR also monitors the progress made in order to achieve the MDGs due in 2015. Its operational framework is based on the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

The United Nations General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) govern the UN refugee agency. Its Executive Committee, responsible for the approval of the agency's biennial programmes and the corresponding budget, is currently comprised of 78 members, 65% of which are African and European states.

At NMUN 2010 the agenda for our Committee was set on the following topics in that order:

1. International Cooperation, Burden and Responsibility Sharing in Mass Influx Situations;

2. Local Integration as a Durable Solution;

3. Enhancing the Protection of UNHCR and NGO Aid Workers in Conflict Zones.

As Spain is the European country with the highest number of refugee influxes and since the number of climate refugees is estimated to rise in the near future, international aid to deal with the matter is considered a priority. Therefore the existing agenda setting was in accordance with our preferences. At first session the agenda was to be agreed upon which led to a lot of intense debate. Unexpectedly the majority of delegations wished the third topic to be set to either the first or the second position as they considered it to be more important than Local Integration. From our perspective the lack of protection of aid workers, though being immensely crucial for the success of all UNHCR projects undertaken worldwide, is a topic that calls for the support and political will of all governments. Since the UNHCR’s resolutions are not binding we believed a meaningful consensus could rather be reached in topic number one and two.

Holding the EU Presidency from January until July 2010, Spain has put the refugee issue on top of its agenda and to adhere to it was our top priority. Another goal for us was to mediate in order to reach a common European consensus while promoting Spain’s objectives through initiatives such as the Alliance of Civilisations. The whole Spanish Delegation aimed to concentrate on this initiative as a trademark of Spanish policy throughout the conference. In our committee the main objectives of eradication of extremism and support of intercultural dialogue, as channeled through the Alliance of Civilisations, was crucial to the enhancement of durability and effectiveness of every proposed policy on the relevant refugee issue. The task of leading the EU members to a common approach proved to be more challenging than expected. Our EU counterparts were focused on national priorities or even completely novel approaches of the matter in hand and hence did not support a common European position in the beginning. Since the positions concerning the agenda were too diverse we directly moved into voting procedure. The result was the following order: 1; 3; 2.

After that first hardship we prepared ourselves for the first day discussing topic number one by changing our strategy to being a mediator rather than a leader. In that sense we split and tried to get an overview of all working papers being composed. Whereas the Latin American and the African-Middle Eastern Bloc were aimed at developing co-operation regionally, the European countries rather focused on a broader consensus on the legal definition of refugees. The observers in our committee, Médecins sans Frontiers and Human Rights Watch, composed a working paper themselves based on the experiences of different countries with the issue and the establishment of instruments for knowledge transfer, such as the European Common Asylum System (ECAS). We supported a certain number of working papers that were in line with our policy by becoming Signatories to them. Nevertheless, our main goal to introduce a new instrument with funding, provision of technical assistance and assessment responsibilities was only supported by Italy and Australia. For this reason we partnered with them and started composing our own working paper. Besides that, the day presented the rather unusual sight, in Real Politic terms, of developed countries being the fieriest supporters of the interests of developing countries.

On the third day, namely ‘meltdown Thursday’ due to its intense schedule, we continued with our working paper, hoping for this to give us the opportunity to convince some other delegations of the importance of assistance measures towards developed states with high percentages of refugee flows, most notably within the EU, in their efforts to provide for refugees without jeopardising their own stability. In order to promote and compose it at the same time, one half of the delegations collaborating on our working paper, namely the Italian, Australian and Spanish ones went in pursuit of signatories, whereas the other half formulated our ideas in writing. Italy’s proposal to establish a knowledge sharing unit within the UNHCR, called ALISE and our Alliance of Civilisations as well as the necessity of a supporting fund, e.g. the European Refugee Fund (ERF), were acknowledged. Our alliance with the Latin American and the African-Middle Eastern Bloc the day before turned out to be very helpful as they supported us in return. By the end of the day 11 working papers were handed in at the Dias desk.

The final day of negotiations began with the Dias asking for a merge of most of the working papers composed the day before. In a mammoth merger five working papers become one, which was both exciting and unrealistic since it contained a number of highly contradictory clauses rather than a conciliative combination of them. Handing in ours lastly turned out to be a major advantage as it was processed by the Chair in more detail, which gave us the time to consider possible merging partners in preparation of the worst case scenario of having to merge. After not having been recognised by many of the bigger players in the beginning, such as the other European countries, many approached us to merge with their output eventually. However, since we believed our content to be too specific in comparison with the others we rejected each proposal and decided to play for time and wait for the Chair’s final decision. Nonetheless, we had to partner with Canada in the mean time in order to get its programme FOCUS included. It establishes specific criteria to assess the magnitude of an influx situation and provide assistance accordingly, which was the pre-condition for a number of countries to become a signatory. Finally, the Dias agreed with us and after a small number of editing changes we were able to announce our very own draft resolution 1.6. From that moment on our new task was ‘fishing for votes’ which resulted in the successful conviction of the simple majority and eventually led to the success of draft resolution 1.6 becoming Resolution 1.6!

For the rest of the day we were supposed to discuss topic number two. Whereas a number of groups started composing working papers, where Spain managed to become a Signatory and get one of its most prominent goals included, namely the first step to a legally binding protective framework for UNHCR aid workers, others were obviously exhausted. Since only two hours were left, the Dias introduced a lion puppet as the new Chair and the tense and formal debate turned into an informal session held in the middle of the jungle. Accordingly the delegate of Jordan raised a point of order whether it is in order that the Chair is not appropriately dressed which lead to the delegate of Montenegro offering his jacket to the Lion-Chair.

All in all, this experience was truly one of the most valuable ones in our lives. We learned a lot more about the UN as a major organisation in global diplomacy and its bodies than we ever imagined to. The experiences we gained in New York during the session gave us an insight in the life of real diplomats. Though being ignored by many European delegations in the beginning they certainly were more respectful and co-operative after Polyvios held our second speech, stressing the fact of lacking consensus in matters where in real politics the EU speaks with one voice. Eventually we might not have gotten to play the leading role we were prepared for but hence learned a lot about compromise and adaption which will surely be of worth for whatever we will do in our future.