Autocracy, democracy, and a right against hypocrisy

By Eva Bharucha (Del of India today) Ever since the United Nations came together, countries have been split into two categories : Autocracies and Democracies. Nations may claim to be on the side of good. Claim that they oppose terrorism, rape, murder, really anything that is immoral. But this is simply the tip of the iceberg, and they may never reveal the bottom. 

The Sahel region in Africa has been struggling with humanitarian crises such as the growing of terrorist groups, rapes of children, and the freedom of women for over a decade, growing in countries such as Sudan, Senegal, Cameroon, and Niger. As of today in committee, there have been some out-of-hand allegations, debates, and crises, which, of course, is always encouraged by the Chairs. Accusations of having an “orange” for a president and unreleased Epstein files shot at the delegate of the United States, the abuse of feminism in Sudan, and even hypocrisy against Mali! There is some serious political tension tipping over the edge here, and it is about to be split. 

Our first crisis of the UNHRC consisted of an interrogation of an assassin of the Sudanese military in a Malian gold mine owned by the Chinese. His French accomplice Claude Jepette, who is funded by president Emmanuel Macron, assisting him in making a nail-biting getaway. This assassin was supposedly responsible for the murder of Antino Gutierrez, the secretary general of the United Nations, as it had been clarified that he was stabbed with a Sudanese knife. The news triggered nations to react controversially, with Sudan and Senegal blaming funding countries, and the United States blaming China for allowing and funding the setting of the interrogation. Of course, it was no surprise to the Chairs that the African bloc began to blame the Western bloc, and vice versa. All things aside, however, there seems to be a trend in committee where each delegate blames one another. But what is it for? Is it to put down other countries for certain reasons? Or is it in order to avoid being in difficult situations? 

The second crisis followed an accidental bombing commanded by Emmanuel Macron of France on the nation of Mali, wiping out approximately 10,000 civilian lives. The French government claimed to have planned this to abolish the growing number of terrorist groups in Mali, but did not offer apologies or compensation for the overwhelming loss of lives. Surely there must be better solutions than bombing to eliminate terrorist groups! It has also been noted that France did not consult any governments nor provide clear justification for the recent events, sparking debates of concern. African countries like Niger and Senegal have stated clearly that European powers still wish to demonize Africa, and believe that there are still Western views that Africa is theirs to interfere in. The delegate of Senegal said, “Western people still think Africa is theirs to colonize, and is diminishing us”. This can easily be taken as an example of how certain authoritarian-run states have a certain perception of interfering in economically, financially, and socially weaker nations that are currently being consumed by terrorist groups due to historical conquests and current stereotypes. Though the Western bloc claims to have taken these actions to solve the problem in the Sahel region, we cannot be certain if taking away 10,000 lives is worth it.

So what is really happening in the room? Hoarse throats, flushed faces, and death glares seem to be bouncing off the room exceedingly. But one question remains: Is eliminating 10,000 lives, supposedly by accident, worth solving a crisis that just had half of one of its major countries’ population removed?