Today was a very exciting first day for BHoC, HUMUNITED's newest council. The structure here is a lot different from other committees: personal pronouns, booing and clapping, and dialogue-style debates with less moderation from chairs (or “speakers”, as they are referred to in the council) make the whole experience a lot different, and allow for more heated, although equally productive, debates. There were many differing opinions voiced in the opening speeches: there are those who support the Irish Backstop in order to protect the Good Friday Agreement and protect the United Kingdom’s internal stability, and those who claim it is a prison, and not only does it keep the UK stuck to the European Union, but also treats Northern Ireland as separate from the UK, when it should be treated as an equal part of the Kingdom. 

After establishing an agenda, the whole council managed to agree on one thing: there cannot be any hard borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, other divergences took place: is a No Deal Brexit worse than no Brexit at all? How fast should the United Kingdom proceed in leaving the European Union? By the end of the first day, bills had already begun to be written, and we will see how this council manages to merge such opposing opinions together in order to ensure what’s best for the interests of the United Kingdom

During the opening session, various countries raised concerns about economic and political issues across Asia. Myanmar questioned China about its support to less developed nations, while Afghanistan pressed China regarding its role in regional conflicts. Meanwhile, Pakistan challenged Indonesia on its efforts to support democracy in Muslim-majority countries. Iran, responding to Myanmar, clarified its stance on democracy as one rooted in Islamic values but adaptable to non-religious nations.

North Korea faced scrutiny from Afghanistan on the impact of international non-recognition, and from the UK on how it addresses discrimination given the limited information available. Saudi Arabia questioned Myanmar on whether a Western model of democracy suits all Asian countries, to which Myanmar responded that it depends on various factors.

During the discussion phase, Afghanistan emphasized strict laws and initiatives to combat violence against women. The United States proposed a UN-backed education fund to support Western Asian countries. Myanmar highlighted the importance of investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, while calling for international funding to aid development.

China expressed reservations about Myanmar’s approach and strongly opposed the U.S. proposal, suggesting ulterior motives behind American assistance and calling for clearer clauses in any aid plan. North Korea aligned with Myanmar’s views, signaling some regional solidarity in addressing shared developmental goals. 

In conclusion, the discussions reflected the complexity of reconciling national sovereignty with the urgency of collective security. While some delegates pushed for international involvement grounded in cooperation, others voiced strong concerns over external interference and the legacy of colonialism. As the debate progresses, the committee remains committed to finding a balanced and inclusive resolution that acknowledges both regional autonomy and the global nature of the threat posed by Al-Shabaab and organized crime.

The Junior UNICEF Council of HUMUNITED 2025 began with a thoughtful debate on the roots and effects of racism in basic education worldwide. Delegates from seventeen countries addressed the challenge of eliminating racism from schools while promoting inclusion and equal opportunity. Under the theme “Combating Racism in Basic Education,” young diplomats from nations such as France, Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, and the United States explored the origins of racism, its impact on schools, and consequences for child development.

National perspectives varied. France emphasized the importance of community awareness, while India highlighted its historical racial issues and the role of education in addressing injustice. Russia pointed to xenophobia as a key cause, a view challenged by Canada, which stressed the importance of distinguishing between racism and xenophobia. The United States acknowledged its legacy of inequality and shared current efforts to promote equal opportunities, while Canada noted that full inclusion remains a work in progress.

Urgent concerns included Turkey’s report that 80% of school discrimination cases affect refugee students, prompting proposals to value native languages and support integration. Palestine called for religious respect in school curricula as part of peace-building. Brazil presented its policy of teaching Afro-Brazilian and African cultures, and Argentina raised questions about funding and implementation of anti-racist strategies.

Throughout the session, delegates recognized shared challenges: how structural racism marginalizes students, how historical injustices persist, and the need for collaborative reforms. While a unified strategy was not reached, the council committed to advancing discussions on concrete policies and pedagogical solutions, offering hope for a more inclusive global education system.

The Historical Council held its first session to address the partition of Palestine and the possible creation of a Jewish state. Strong disagreements emerged: countries like the USA, USSR, France, Brazil, Canada, Belgium, Poland, and the Netherlands supported the partition into Jewish and Arab states. The UK remained neutral but active. In contrast, Arab and Muslim-majority nat   bn ions such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others opposed the plan, favoring a single Arab state.

The session ended with a move to an unmoderated caucus for informal discussions. In the next meeting, delegates addressed key issues related to the partition: geography, demographics, displacement, Jewish immigration, cultural and religious concerns, civil rights, education, and the status of Jerusalem. Discussions also covered stability, sovereignty, and the prevention of future conflicts.

The UK called for a moderated caucus to discuss the first topic, allowing each delegation 1:30 minutes to speak. Countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Brazil, France, India, USSR, and others participated. The UK repeated its neutral stance, aiming for consensus rather than a fixed solution.

France strongly defended the partition, citing historic oppression of the Jewish people. Canada also supported the two-state proposal as a path to peace. In contrast, India warned that partition could lead to more chaos rather than resolution, highlighting the complexity of the issue.

The first day of discussions in the UN Women Council opened with a strong focus on the intersection of gender equality, religion, and human rights. Delegates referred to their position papers to express diverging perspectives on gender inequality in Middle Eastern family and marriage laws. The debate centered on issues such as forced marriage, domestic violence, legal guardianship, and the need to modernize laws without compromising cultural identity or religious values. A recurring theme was whether reinterpreting religious texts could provide a culturally sensitive route to reform.

While most countries emphasized that current legal structures contribute to systemic misogyny and violations of universal human rights, others, notably the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, rejected this framing, arguing that what is labeled “inequality” is, in their view, a reflection of complementary roles defined by Islamic law. This prompted deeper discussion around whether applying UN-defined universal rights equates to labeling entire cultures or belief systems as “wrong,” a concern raised by multiple delegations. The balance between respecting tradition and promoting reform was seen as a key challenge.

Then, during the semi-moderated caucus, delegations discussed the prioritization of agenda topics. After open exchanges, the committee agreed to begin with discussions on domestic violence, forced marriage, and the role of education in promoting equality. The Chairs reminded all delegations to maintain diplomatic language and avoid personal pronouns, occasionally extending speaking time to allow for the completion of key arguments.

A brief writing session took place at 3:45 p.m. to draft potential topic framings and proposals, setting the stage for structured debate in the upcoming days. The Council concluded the day with a clear contrast of visions: while many called for democratic legal reform guided by human rights treaties, others maintained the primacy of sovereignty, religious law, and social order.

In the opening session of the conference dedicated to the crisis in Haiti, the delegation of Argentina reaffirmed its proposals, facing questions from the United Kingdom regarding their effectiveness. The critical cholera situation was widely highlighted, with the delegation of Cuba questioning the Bahamas about the measures taken to address the outbreak. Argentina also expressed criticism of Brazil’s role during the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), highlighting controversies related to human rights violations. Colombia acknowledged the challenges faced in welcoming Haitian immigrants, while the delegation of Haiti emphasized the multidimensional nature of the crisis, attributing to France only symbolic support. Kenya raised concerns about armed group violence and pushed for a coordinated approach to health and political stability. Spain offered humanitarian aid, the UK proposed structural reforms and funding, and the U.S. confirmed over $30 million in assistance.

At the end of the session, a semi-moderated discussion was held for around 20 minutes, during which the delegates of their respective countries reached a consensus on creating an agenda with three main objectives: Rebuilding Haiti’s healthcare system, tabilizing the national emergency, and maintaining and/or improving the country's infrastructure.

In the second session, the first debate began on the initial topic of the agenda, with each delegate having approximately one and a half minutes to speak. The first delegation to take the floor was Haiti, defending the idea that reading campaigns are not effective since around 60% of the population is illiterate. They also raised a general question regarding the safety of workers in the country. The Federative Republic of Brazil addressed Haiti directly, asking whether awareness campaigns about the situation in the country were truly effective. The Haitian delegation responded that they are indeed beneficial, as they amplify understanding of the crisis on an international scale.

All countries are present at the assembly. The delegation from Iran is scheduled to give the first speech, followed by Cuba, China, the United States (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), and and South Africa. 

South Africa argues that the function of technology should be to help the country, not to blindly follow orders. Iran states that its technologies are meant to protect the nation, regardless of the potential damage they may cause. Cuba is advocating for a treaty banning all nuclear weapons. China emphasizes that each country should handle its own issues and expresses support for nuclear expansion. While Cuba is entirely against nuclear arms, China adopts a more permissive stance.

France proposes a plan to Russia for monitoring nuclear weapons—suggesting checks on their range and potential for destruction. However, Russia disagrees. France also declares that it will never submit to voluntary inspections or controls.

Germany calls for transparency regarding the global nuclear situation and the nuclear capabilities of each country. In response, Iran claims that Germany has ended its nuclear collaboration with them.

Finally, the United States declares that the world is currently facing an incredibly complex situation, with potentially multiple overlapping objectives and difficult challenges ahead.

Regarding the controversial debate on whether the fight against Al-Shabaab and organized crime should be regional or international, the delegates, in the first session, expressed their positions and directed their efforts toward a resolution that would be acceptable to all within the committee.

Somalia emphasized the need to view counterterrorism as an international issue and made clear the necessity of a joint effort. The United Kingdom, as a former colonizer of Somali territory, acknowledged its involvement in various national conflicts due to this history and expressed its willingness to engage in cooperative work. Other countries followed the same line as the UK. Afghanistan, Italy, Turkey, among others, demanded collaboration between regional actors and international institutions in order to address this global threat.

Eritrea rejected the influence of “imperialist nations” and insisted that the fight should be carried out independently. Other countries reinforced this counterpoint, not only arguing within the colonial and imperialist framework but also questioning the allegedly peaceful intentions of countries like the United States.

Iran took a mixed position: although it supports international cooperation, it also emphasized Somalia’s primary responsibility in countering terrorism, while rejecting any form of international assistance based on military intervention.

The debate, still ongoing, is expected to reach a conclusion in the upcoming sessions.

On the first day of HUMUNITED, the JUNEP Council gathered to address one of the world’s most urgent environmental challenges: plastic pollution in the oceans. The session began with opening speeches in which delegates expressed their nations' concerns and their commitment to finding sustainable solutions through cooperation.

The core of the debate centered on reducing plastic waste, especially from packaging. Delegates proposed a variety of approaches, including legal restrictions on plastic production, incentives for businesses to adopt eco-friendly alternatives, and the promotion of recycling and circular economy models. The idea of implementing a plastic tax was also discussed to discourage use and fund waste management projects.

Beyond legislation, many delegations stressed the importance of environmental education and public awareness campaigns. They also called for stronger international cooperation to enhance the effectiveness of global responses to marine plastic pollution.

The council also addressed microplastics already present in the oceans, discussing the use of artificial intelligence and tracking technologies to target cleanup efforts. Nonetheless, delegates widely agreed that prevention must remain the top priority. In conclusion, the council supported a comprehensive strategy combining legal, technological, financial, and educational measures, reflecting a shared commitment to long-term global action.

Nearly 20 countries gathered this week at the HUMUNITED summit to debate how to transition away from fossil fuels without threatening economic stability or increasing social inequalities. Under the theme “Decarbonization and Socioeconomic Stability,” student delegates from nations like Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, China, Germany, and the United States engaged in passionate discussions, especially focusing on the challenges faced by oil-dependent economies.

Opening speeches revealed key national concerns. Algeria warned of the economic dangers of a rapid transition, as fossil fuels make up 85% of its economy. Brazil viewed the shift as a chance for social progress and innovation, while Germany pushed for clear, realistic targets. China and the U.S. highlighted the need for science-based policies and international cooperation through technology sharing.

Throughout the debate, concerns emerged over job losses, poverty, and unrest linked to fast divestment from oil. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Libya called for gradual transitions, financial support, and inclusive solutions, especially in countries with fragile infrastructure. Meanwhile, nations like Norway shared their ongoing investments in renewables, despite reliance on oil exports.

Although some final statements were postponed, a common understanding developed: the energy transition is urgent, but it must be implemented with care, fairness, and global coordination.