North Atlantic Council BMNATO 2021 Review
BMNATO’s 8th edition was bound to be incredible, given not only the fiery topics and prestige it had gathered over the years, but also the relentless hard work put in by the organising team and the reputable location where all the magic happened: Bucharest’s very own Palace of the Parliament. So join me, fellow MUNers, as I recount my journey through my first (but definitely not last) BMNATO experience, as the delegate of Germany in the North Atlantic Council.
Introduction to the conference
Bucharest Model NATO is an academic simulation of the inner workings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, meant to show teenagers how decisions are taken at a higher level, as well as teach valuable skills such as public speaking and negotiation. This year’s conference was held on 10-13 June, and what made it even more significant was its overlapping with a real-life NATO summit, which took place on June 14th in Brussels; this helped put our solutions into context, knowing that world leaders were simultaneously trying to come up with their own.
Model NATO is different to MUN in several regards, such as the fact that resolutions are called communiqués, and that it is a military alliance rather than a forum for facilitating discussions; this meant that we had to focus more on the technical aspects of our topic, and we didn’t have super-powers such as Russia and China in the committee, thus having to predict and act preemptively in anticipation of their responses. The most considerable difference, however, was in the voting procedure: all matters had to be passed through consensus, and each vote would be done through a vote of silence. Instead of raising placards, we’d stay silent if we were in favour, and shout “objection” if we were against.
The topic for the NAC was “The Russian militarisation of Crimea, the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azov and the threat of these actions to European and NATO Security”. Russia has been placing increasing numbers of troops on Crimean territory and in the neighbouring waters, and this creates tension and concern within NATO; the main issues that had to be discussed were how to approach Russia without aggravating them, if we should encourage Ukraine’s accession to NATO, and how to de-escalate the region and keep our Allies safe. The NAC is somewhat similar to the Security Council of the UN, but one extra attribute that it possesses is that all communiqués passed by the other councils have to be voted upon and approved by us in the final open session.
Day 1
After settling down in the Human Rights room of the Palace for the opening ceremony, we heard speeches from the organising team, as well as several exciting guest speakers, such as James Joye Townsend (President of the Atlantic Treaty Association), Ludovic Orban (President of the Chamber of Deputies), and Mircea Geoana (Deputy Secretary-General of NATO).
We then held the NAC open session, where the USA, Turkey and I held opening speeches on both of our topics in front of the entire conference; although I don’t suffer from stage fright, it was quite a nerve-wracking experience. My fellow delegates’ speeches were incredible, and I hope that mine lived up to their standards.
Day 2
The second day commenced with another round of opening speeches, where we established the basis of our subsequent discussions: Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was illegitimate, and we hope to find political, not military solutions to the problem. However, as debate on the General Speakers’ List began, it became clear that this was easier said than done. We entered a rather lengthy debate on Russia’s energy influence in Europe, which started when the USA attacked me for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline currently being built between Germany and Russia. In the end, we realised that, although we cannot entirely cut off Russian gas, what we can do is push for a net-zero carbon emission target by 2050, to minimise our energy consumption and thus our dependence on Russia.
Another big discussion point was how to unblock the Black Sea. At the moment, Russian ships in that region prevent government vessels from passing through, also causing trade disruptions. Although re-routing essential trade through neighbouring countries or via air transport would be much more expensive, a solution was ultimately found in the usage of NATO funds to make up for the increased costs. The USA then stated that no action should be taken until the Geneva conference between Presidents Biden and Putin on June 16th, to see what middle ground can be negotiated with Russia (spoiler alert: none was found). Eventually, we decided to have a plan ready for after the conference, if only to show Russia that their leverage is not as strong as they think it is. After several extended moderated caucuses, we moved on to a more pressing topic: whether Ukraine should accede to NATO or not.
Some encouraged Ukraine’s accession, but the rest argued that we would become increasingly responsible for their safety, so instead, we settled on a partnership with Ukraine, whereby they can request help if needed, but NATO is not required to reply. Other solutions proposed were sanctions, which were quickly dropped due to lack of support, and the creation of a council to discuss with Russia, which ended up being implemented in the final communiqué.
By this point, we were drained of energy, so we welcomed the lunch break with open arms, especially since it gave me and some other delegates a chance to talk about what direction the debate should follow after lunch, seeing as some key topics hadn’t been addressed yet, such as cyber attacks, the separatists in Donbas and Crimea, and Russian propaganda. However, upon the request of the chairs, we entered an unmoderated caucus to start drafting a working paper, so any further debate had to be put on hold. It was at this point that I sent a message to the chairs asking if I could speak to a delegate of Russia, as I thought it would help guide us, but, unfortunately, they couldn’t help me in that regard.
However, we did have the surprise of listening to a guest speaker in the last committee session. Simina Tulbure (a member of Romania’s parliament) spoke to us about opportunities in the European Parliament, her experience working there, and how we could follow in her footsteps. It was truly inspiring, listening to her, and I think that it was a satisfying conclusion to an otherwise extremely exhausting first day of debate, especially since, because of the huge amount of rain, the social event had to be postponed until Sunday!
Day 3
We started the third day with a bit of controversy over the communiqué and some clauses not having been shared with everyone, but we managed to work it out and create something that we were all very proud of. And then, surprise: Russia came to talk to us! We had a Q&A session with a member of the organising team who had kindly volunteered to be placed in the cross-hairs of our burning questions, giving us valuable insight such as “if NATO chooses peace and trust, we will follow suit”. After hearing her input and making a few minor changes, we voted on who the main submitter should be and the Secretariat checked over our document, having to remind us in some cases that we’re not SOCHUM or “Ministerul Transportului”; if you couldn’t tell by now that we weren’t used to the military aspect of NATO, I think this might have just given it away.
We left for lunch feeling confident in our work so far and looking forward to debate on amendments in the afternoon, but realised soon that we clearly have too much time on our hands, since we had submitted 38 amendments, while other committees only had 5 or 6! It was an arduous process, to say the least; we lost many on the way, heroes who had fallen victims to the horrors of the NAC, and although we weren’t even close to finishing, we had to press pause for the evening.
Day 4
Refreshed and armed with renewed energy reserves, we set our minds to finishing the communiqué and succeeded with enough time to spare for funny awards and placard signing. Since the Palace could not provide us with lunch that day, the whole committee decided to go out and dine together, allowing us to bond and form friendships.
We hurried back after eating for the NAC open session, where the communiqués from the other councils were read out and voted upon; in reality though, since we didn’t want to ruin the hard work put in by the other delegates, we allowed them all to pass, even though we didn’t entirely agree with everything. The award ceremony came right after and, as suspected, the social was cancelled once again thanks to the horrible weather, so sadly we had to say our goodbyes sooner than initially anticipated. It seemed that somehow, we found the worst weekend of the year, weather-wise, to attend a conference.
Concluding remarks
I have no words to describe what this experience meant for me. I laughed, I cried, I met some truly remarkable people, and I couldn’t have loved it more. I’m going to be honest and say that I had quite low expectations, since I was allocated to a different committee than I initially wanted, but my preconceived opinions were completely blown away, and all of the novelties, ranging from the format to how we’d hold our speeches (sitting down and speaking into microphones), ensured that it was worthwhile.
A huge thank you to our chairpersons and the organising team: you were all stars, you made sure that everything ran smoothly, and although organising such a conference is no easy feat, you made it seem effortless. Thank you for all the sleepless nights you put into this project; we, the delegates, truly appreciate it!
Honestly, if this conference taught me anything, it’s the fact that no matter how chaotic and seemingly aimless it can get, one can always find order in the madness and enjoy it fully!
.png)
Comments