TECHNIQUE OF MUNNING Part.4. (POINTS)

September 16, 2017

TECHNIQUE OF MUNNING Part.4. (POINTS)

Raising points during the conference is very important. The chairperson will take all this into consideration for the awards. There are 4 main points:

POINT OF INFORMATION
POINT OF ORDER
POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY ENQUIRY
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

There is one more point known as

5. POINT OF ENTERTAINMENT.

Explanation for the above points will be given below:

POI- You ask questions to the speaker in relation to their speech.
POO- Something is being done wrong, procedure wise. The speaker SHOULD only say what is being done wrong to the caucus leader, once asked to approach the chair.
POPE- If the delegate cannot hear what the speaker is saying or when he/she wants to use the restroom, suppose the delegate want to reduce the temperature of the AC, etc.
POPP- The Delegate does not know how to behave during a given situation and needs to ask the caucus leader, once asked to approach the chair.
POE- If the delegate feels bored during the conference he/she may raise a POE and its the chair's choice whether to approve the point or to reject the request.

Raising points is the first step to criticise other delegates. By raising a POINT OF ORDER (POO), we will be able to criticise the other delegate by QUOTING one or more lines from their speeches and we can point out factual inaccuracies in their speeches. We can also prove them wrong by stating facts and news that may or may not agitate them. The only work we should do is to research in depth about the agenda and find not only facts about our country's stance with regards to the agenda but also find facts, news and information about other countries as well.

This leads us to the next part: TECHNIQUE OF MUNNING Part.5. (SELF CONFIDENCE & STAGE FEAR)

Comments

Unknown17 December 2018 at 08:41
pls hightlight the aleady highlighted (white) text so it can be read. Extremely valuable points...could not find this in any other blog..!!! Hats Off!! To the creator of this blog!! Best of luck!
ReplyDelete
Replies

Post a Comment

INDIA IN UN H.E. Ms. Sushma Swaraj, Minister of External Affairs

SUSHMA SWARAJ, Minister for External Affairs of India, described two ways to work towards the eradication of poverty — the traditional method of incremental aid and “hand-holding”, and the more radical route of economic empowerment adopted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. All of India’s economic programmes centred around the goal of empowering the poor, she said, citing the Jan Dhan plan — the world’s largest financial inclusion scheme — as one example. Demonetization was another courageous decision taken to challenge the “black money” resulting from corruption. While rising nations such as India were generating change, developed countries must become active partners in assisting those still mired in poverty to attain the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. While India was fighting poverty, she said, its neighbour Pakistan “seems only engaged in fighting us”. This week at the Assembly, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi had accused India of State-sponsored terrorism and violating human rights. Those listening had had one observation: “Look who’s talking,” she said. “A country that has been the world’s greatest exporter of havoc, death and inhumanity became a champion of hypocrisy by preaching about humanity from this podium.” Pakistan had forgotten that under the Shimala Agreement and the Lahore Declaration, the two countries had agreed to settle all outstanding issues bilaterally and decided in 2015 to enter into a comprehensive bilateral dialogue. Pakistan now must answer why that proposal had withered, as it was responsible for aborting the peace process. India had risen, despite being the principle destination for Pakistan’s nefarious export of terrorism. “What has Pakistan offered to the world, and indeed its own people, apart from terrorism?” she asked. Condemning such activities, she warned that making pious declarations to combat terrorism had become a ritual for some in the Assembly. “The fact is that when we are required to fight and destroy this enemy, the self-interest of some leads them to duplicity.” While India had proposed the creation of a convention against international terrorism as early as 1996, the United Nations still had not been able to agree on a common definition of terrorism. She pressed the Assembly to stop seeing that evil “with self-defeating and indeed meaningless nuance,” adding that “evil is evil” and cautioning against differentiating between “good terrorists” and “bad terrorists”. On climate change, she stressed that just before the start of the Assembly, nature had sent a warning in the form of hurricanes and earthquakes. “The developed world must listen more carefully than others, because it has more capacity than others,” she said, voicing support for the Paris Agreement and requesting assistance for developing countries through technology transfer and green climate financing.

H.E. Mr. Donald J. Trump, President

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, said “we live in a time of extraordinary opportunity” with major breakthroughs in technology, medicine and other important areas. However, each day also brought growing dangers, including from terrorists and extremists. Noting that some rogue regimes “represented in this body” supported terrorists, he said such Powers sought to collapse States. Meanwhile, the trafficking of weapons and people, forced migration and new forms of technological aggression also threatened the world’s citizens, he said. It was up to the international community to decide whether it would “lift the world up”, or let it fall into greater peril. Recalling that the United Nations was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape a better future, he said the United States had developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe, guided by the pillars of sovereignty, security and prosperity. The world was safer when States were strong, independent and free, he said, and the success of the United Nations depended on the independent strength of its Member States. While the United States did not expect diverse countries to share its values, they must respect the rights of their own peoples and those of every other sovereign nation, he emphasized. “This is the foundation for cooperation and success.” Noting that the United States Constitution and its first three words — “We the people” — had provided inspiration to countries around the world, he said that he had not been elected to take power, but rather to give power to the American people, including in the field of foreign affairs. “As President of the United States, I will always put America first,” just as other leaders should always put their own countries first, he said, adding that, meanwhile, all countries must work in harmony. While the United States would continue to be a great friend, it would no longer enter into deals from which it received nothing in return, he cautioned, adding: “It is in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous and secure.” In emerging from the Second World War, the United States and its allies had not sought to impose their will on others, but instead, had worked to build institutions such as the United Nations. “We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife,” he declared. The world must have enough strength and pride to confront today’s dangers, including rejecting threats to sovereignty, from Ukraine to the South China Sea, he said, noting that a small group of rogue nations respected neither the rights of other nations nor those of their own people.

H.E. Mr. Emmanuel Macron, President

EMMANUEL MACRON, President of France, outlining his country’s duty to speak up for the voiceless, said the people of Syria had suffered enough. The international community should acknowledge its collective failure and find methods to build a durable peace. France was unwavering against the use of chemical weapons and he underscored the need to act against Islamic terrorism in Syria and Iraq. As Jihadist terrorism had hit France and other nations, use of the Internet for terrorist purposes, including financing, should be challenged. As forced migration had demonstrated, there were no barriers to the onward march of despair, he said, which should be changed towards the road to freedom. Access to humanitarian aid should be provided and the rule of law re-established. “As we all know, we are dealing with ethnic cleansing here,” he said, and humanitarian law was no longer being respected. The protection of refugees was a moral and political duty, and France had pledged to support the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)in opening escape routes wherever required and by upholding the Geneva Convention. The causes of instability must also be addressed, as migration and terrorism were political challenges first and foremost. If they were to be overcome, it would only be through development. He said France would work to ensure that aid arrived in countries where it was needed. Its first priority was to invest in education, followed by health to combat pandemics and malnutrition. He highlighted the key role of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in preserving progress and protecting freedom of expression. In that context, he called for the creation of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the protection of journalists across the world. On climate change, which was leading to increasing numbers of disasters, he said the planet was “taking its revenge for the folly of mankind”. France had promised to achieve a universal agreement in Paris, which had been signed in the General Assembly. That was “not up for renegotiation”, he said, as taking it apart would demolish the existing pact between States — and between generations. While the agreement could be improved, the international community should not backtrack. He fully respected the decision of the United States, noting that the door would always be open, and that France would continue to work with Governments, local governments, non-governmental organizations and others on combatting climate change. On 12 December, his Government would meet in Paris with those who wished to drive forward. It would also allocate €5 billion to climate action between now and 2020.

H.E. Mr. Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for Foreign Affairs

SIGMAR GABRIEL, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, said world leaders must question how to bring about change that would lead to more peace and stability, less hunger and better prospects for everyone. While humanity faced the same structural difficulties as it had some 40 years ago, it seemed more difficult to change the world for the better. A world view that placed one’s own national interests first, and was no longer engaged in balancing interests among countries, was gaining ground. That view described the world as a battle ground where everyone fought everyone else, asserting their own interests, either alone or in alliances of convenience. “I am convinced that we have to rise against this worldview,” he said, stressing the need for more international cooperation and less national egoism. The motto “our country first” not only led to more confrontations and less prosperity, but in the end, there would only be losers, he warned. After two world wars, he said Germany had learned to see its former enemies as neighbours and partners with whom it sought peaceful coexistence. In international cooperation, no one lost sovereignty. Turning former enemies into friends had been a difficult path for Germany, as the call for cooperation was not always popular in one’s own country. Yet, that effort had created peace in Europe after generations of war. Germans were grateful for the countries in Europe that had shown the courage to make his country — once an enemy — a new and lasting friend.

H.E. Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister

SHINZO ABE, Prime Minister of Japan, said the two recent missile launches by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been programmed to fly over Japan. The gravity of that threat was unprecedented and indisputably a matter of urgency. “North Korea is attempting to dismiss with a smirk the efforts towards disarmament we have assiduously undertaken over the years,” he said, adding that the non‑proliferation regime was about to suffer a serious blow from its most confident disrupter ever. The recent crisis was of an altogether different dimension. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear weapons either were, or were on the verge, of becoming hydrogen bombs and their means of delivery would sooner or later be intercontinental ballistic missiles. He said it was not a lack of dialogue that had given rise to the current situation. Dialogue had dissuaded the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from pursuing its nuclear ambitions twice thus far, having saved the world from crises. However, Pyongyang had never intended to abandon its nuclear ambitions, which had become apparent to all. It had defrauded the United States, Republic of Korea and Japan of assistance and betrayed the good faith of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Since 1994, the international community had continued its efforts towards dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said, with great perseverance, first through the Agreed Framework, and later, the Six-Party Talks. However, the international community had learned that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had no intention of abandoning its nuclear or missile development. Dialogue had instead been used as the best means of deceiving the international community and buying time. In 1994, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had no nuclear weapons and its ballistic missile technology was far from mature. Yet, Pyongyang was now working to attain hydrogen bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Repeated attempts to resolve issues through dialogue had come to naught, he said, questioning what hope of success remained if the same failure was repeated a third time. “We must make North Korea abandon all nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner,” he stressed, adding that pressure was needed, not dialogue. Japan would face up to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear and missile threat through the Japan-United States alliance, he said, adding: “We consistently support the stance of the United States that ‘all options are on the table’.” His country appreciated the Security Council’s unanimous adoption of resolution 2375 (2017), which imposed strict sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and intended to intensify pressure to force that country to undertake a fundamental change on its path.