CCBMUN
Press
Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Commitee
Focused on humanitarian international affairs, usually including subjects regarding women, children, minorities, youth, disability and justice. This commission focuses on analyzing, debating and coming up with solutions to problems regarding problems.
​
The Official CCBMUN will be covering two topics, 'Regulation of freedom of speech and circulation of false information in the new era of mass media' and 'Effects of fast fashion on society and the environment'
Topics
Model
Topic 1: Regulation of freedom of speech and circulation of false information in the new era of mass media
Topic 2: Effects of fast fashion on society and the environment
Presidents
President: Manuela Paz
School:Colegio Hispanoamericano
President: Juan Fernando Castaño
School: Colegio Hispanoamericano
Contact: sochum@ccbcali.edu.co
SOCHUM is the third commission of the General Assembly; as its initials indicate, it’s focused specifically on humanitarian, social and cultural issues, which means that it analyzes and discusses social structures, exposure to danger, and the application of human rights in different situations. This commission will discuss different ways to improve tolerance and transparency, and will also consider the creation of new ecological and sustainable arrangements in order to provide new expectations for the world, starting with urbanizations.
We expect to see a high level of participation from our delegates, keeping in mind the humanitarian aspects of the topics, and focusing on the rights of citizens. We hope you, as delegates and representatives of each country, can defend your ideals in a critical way by developing strong arguments, and proffering inclusive solutions which embrace global welfare.
"
CCBMUNXVIII
Day 1
By: Michelle Karam
The first topic discussed in the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee was the “Regulation of freedom of speech and circulation of false information in the new era of mass media”. Freedom of speech is one of the Universal Human Rights. It states that everyone should have free expression without limitations. With the rise of new social media platforms and the internet the spread of fake news and hate speech has significantly increased. Making it hard to discern facts from false claims. These fake news stories have a huge impact on today’s society. These can cause panic, hate, influence elections, and it can even cost lives. With the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen an incredible amount of misinformation, that caused people to ignore reliable sources, hence making the pandemic worse. We can also see the effects of misinformation in politics. People make false allegations to influence people’s point of view and vote. Some platforms have implemented the use of AI to limit this misleading information, by adding fact checking software and adding trustworthy sources to posts regarding a critical subject. The main goal of the topic is to find a solution to this issue without sorting to censorship, which would take away the right to freedom of speech.
During the debate we saw that delegations such as China, Russia and Pakistan are in favor of limiting what information comes in and out of mainstream news, social media and internet platforms. According to them this is to prevent chaos and panic, because the government is a reliable source. Russia has policies that censor the media and makes the media go through a filter that will determine whether this is suitable information.
On the other side we have delegations such as India, Australia and Brazil. These delegations are in favor of fact checking and allowing resources for people to become informed from reliable sources. These countries are against censorship, because that would violate freedom of speech. The delegation of India proposed sanctions against people who spread hate speech or misinformation. The delegation of Brazil proposed that media outlets or the internet doesn’t promote websites that provide inaccurate information, but for these to still be there, just not as accessible.
​
These delegations are currently working on solutions that would imply a compromise from both sides. A compromise that would not invalidate the freedom of speech, while controlling the spread of misinformation.
Day 2
By: Michelle Karam
On day 2 the commission of SOCHUM started with presenting their working paper and resolution. All the countries got together for a single agreement. This resolution of the first topic, “Regulation of freedom of speech and circulation of false information in the new era of mass media”. It consisted in an international agreement that allowed for every country to set their own media regulations to prevent hate speech, national security issues, and fake news. Without resorting to censorship. Delegations such as Russia and China, that currently have total control over what people put out in the media, have implemented blog-like solutions that have a warning about how the information included in them might not be true. Thereby, allowing people to freely express their opinions without claiming that the information provided is truthful or associated with the respective governments. There were also delegations such as Brazil and the U.S., these value freedom of speech a lot, so they implemented no limitations but suggested the use of fact-checking AI and companies, to prevent the spread of misinformation. The resolution also included that all political statements or accusations need to be validated by adding at least two trustworthy sources.
Later in this commission the second topic was introduced, “Fast fashion and its effects on society and the environment”. Fast fashion is the mass production of inexpensive clothing. There is an enormous demand for this type of clothing, as the trends change and people want new clothing. This puts an enormous strain on the environment, the chemicals used in the production of fast fashion are disposed off in the water supplies and land. Fast fashion is also known for underpaying their workers paying them as little as fifty cents per day. The working conditions are horrible putting workers into crowded working spaces. It also implements child labor. Brands such as H&M, Zara, Gap etc, use this method of production. These companies are all from the western countries.
The debate for the second topic was really heated. The delegation of the United States was in favor of fast fashion, with their argument as to why being that the stop of fast fashion would be catastrophic for the entire world’s economy, leaving households without income and ruining companies out of business. The delegation of China argued that they have suffered all the effects of fast fashion, but putting an end to fast fashion would represent a massive loss for their country.
​
​In addition, we saw the position delegations such as India. They are one of the biggest producers in the textile industry and most of the productions are fast fashion. They said that this must be stopped because we cannot compare the wealth gain of a few to the lives of people and our environment being damaged “They exploit our land and then take the money back to their land”- The delegation of India. Another delegation that stood against fast fashion is Australia, they mentioned that this cannot be sustainable long-term and everyone would be affected.
Day 3
By: Michelle Karam
Day three of the SOCHUM commission in the MUN started with presenting the working papers for the solution of their second topic “Fast fashion and its effects on society and the environment”. Two different working papers were introduced. The first one was set forth by the delegations of China, United States and Brazil. These delegations argued that fast fashion was necessary for the international economy, because it provides jobs and it moves 1.2 trillion dollars. They proposed mechanical and chemical recycling to make it fast fashion more sustainable. They also plan to improve the conditions and salary of the workers in this industry. The countries involved in this are willing to set regulations and prohibit child labor in fast fashion. Then the second working paper was introduced by India, Pakistan, Russia, and Australia. They planned on ending fast fashion altogether, while installing ethical brands and recycling centers so that the workers will still have jobs. Then the delegations started voting. It was a very close call but the second one won.
CCBMUNXVII
Simulation Day
Climate change as a social and humanitarian issue in Asia
By: Camila Nahuel
The topic of today’s debate was the cultural and humanitarian aspects of climate change in Asia. This is a concern because, with time, the greenhouse gases expelled from this area have increased and it’s predicted that they will continue to do so. This ongoing increase has negative effects on the cultural and humanitarian aspects which the delegates have to address.
​
The debate focused mainly on four problems: gender disparity, economic inequality, unsustainable cultural practices, and migration crises. Delegates from France, Germany, and Belgium all wanted to implement sustainable energy plants across their countries to reduce climate change advancement and therefore mitigating the effect this has socially. In contrast, the opposing block, which includes delegates from the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia, invalidated these solutions. They explain that to solve the social and humanitarian issues, economic growth is key. They clarified that they will continue with their usual cultural practices regardless of their effect on the environment as they have shown to help their economy and will implement laws to reduce gender disparity in the workplace.
​
The commission suffered a crisis halfway through the debate. A woman of Saudi Arabia, Firdaus, who was sick from a disease that resulted as an effect of climate change, denounced her country. She presented in front of the delegates and called out Saudi Arabia for not being concerned about what consequences climate change has had on her and that the country doesn’t have proper measures of protection for women. After this, the debate picked up, but still, they will likely come to a resolution.
Day 1
Populism in Europe
By: Ana Isabel Marin
The commission of SOCHUM is centered in whether populism is bad for its citizens and humanity or not. The main problem presented by the commision was the populism arising in Europe and how the political views can affect other factors like economy and immigrants. Each delegate of each country debates on it and when giving their side they argument why they side with being against or being in favor of populism. Populims refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
As the model started the delegate of China expressed that populism can cause fear and hate when there are no solutions made for their country. Presidents made many promises when they were being elected and at the end those promises and not fulfilled. According to the delegate of China, fake promises will only create protests and divisions that will not help the country. However, the delegate of USA was in favor of populism. The delegate said that populism helps the economy of the country, as an example she used President Donald Trump because when he came to power, the economy of the country had a lot of growth.
​
As the delegate of USA finished with her arguments and the plackers went down, the delegate of Japan put her placker up and spoke to say how she is against populism. The delegate started by using the same example that the delegate of USA used, Donald Trump. The delegate of Japan said that populism has negative effects to the citizens and that Donald Trump, as a representative of USA, only cares about power and his own benefit. The delegate argumented that Donald Trump doesn’t care about his citizens equally and won’t help with the biggest social problem of them all, immigrants. The delegate discussed that immigrants who are people that get out of their countries because they are scared and that as part of helping immigrants we should accept them in our country. However, immigrants can cause concern in the citizens, as an example they used Europe. In many places in Europe immigrants are a big topic and they want to help them to find a schelter but they need to find a balance between the immigrants and their citizens.
​
​As the discussion ended, the delegate of Colombia wanted to share his side and claimed that the economy in Colombia has grown a 3% the last years and that also, they are accepting venezuelan immigrants to help the social problem, but it can be hard for colombian people to find a job. However, the discussions started to rise up between the delegates of India and USA. The delegate of India spoke up to say that the way that USA is not caring about immigrants and that the President is not doing anything to help immigrants who need it, but the delegate of USA didn't think that way. The delegate said that USA has been helping other countries by giving money to them so they don’t have a lot of economical problems. The discussions still went on and the arguments heated up between US, India and France, because the delegates of India and France are against populism, because they think they are not helping the people that need it by giving money. Their arguments are based on how we should take into account the needs of everyone.
Day 1
A solution for populism in Europe and Restoring the social stability in Central America
By: Ana Isabel Marin
Today in the SOCHUM commision they talked about solutions for the problems that the delegates were discussing about Populism. As the debate starts the delegates show a document with proposals, so at the end they can vote which solution is the best to help both citizens and immigrants from Europe. The delegates of United States, Russia, Guatemala and Poland, presented as one of their solutions to will create a virtual and physical platform, so people can express their concerns and be heard. By using this platform, protests can me minimized because, as the delegate of USA said, “Populism represents the voice of the civilians”. Then the delegates of France, India, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, China, Colombia, Belgium, Nicaragua and South Arabia shared the solution of establishing local organizations, so people could be listen, and starting campaigns to help immigrants who need it, and avoid violence.
As the second topic of the commission of SOCHUM, the delegates discuss about restoring the social stability in Central America northern triangle. The delegation of Russia starts by arguing that the main problem of the stability of countries in Central America is the intervention of the US. The delegate said that, that kind of interventions that are not good for any country must be tackled down because it just creates chaos. However, the delegate of USA defends her country by saying that the US has received a 14% of immigrants which means that they have the highest statistics of accepting refugees. The delegate at the end says that they will not accept anymore and that they refuse any more immigrants that enter their country.
​
The argument of the delegate of USA, makes the delegate of El Salvador put the placker up and speak her truth. The delegate arguments that all the interventions that the US has done, just created more violence in countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, the countries of the northern triangle. The delegate exclaims “The US needs to be responsible for dividing and killing families”. The delegate of China stands up and supports the delegate of El Salvador. The delegate arguments, US just wants more power and by doing so it created chaos. What they should have done is have more pacific interventions, so there will be no more conflicts.
​
As the delegate of USA feels attacked, she says that the US is aware of the interventions that they have done. However, the have helped a big quantity of immigrants and that can’t help them no longer because they need to focus in their country. The delegates of Honduras, Belgium, South Arabia and India talked about something very important, responsibility. Each delegate, when they had to argument, they talked about the responsibility that the US should take. There has been a lot of separation, immigrants and drug traffic and the delegates blame the US for being involved in the countries of the northern triangle. But the delegate of USA doesn’t stay quiet. The delegate says that like countries like Colombia produce drugs and sell them inside and outside their country. The delegate arguments that the US in not the only one to blame in this type of problems because the US wasn’t the only country who made an intervention with countries in Central America.
​
Because if the accusation the delegate of US made to Colombia, the delegate of Colombia puts his placker up and speaks. The delegate arguments that although Colombia is a country that produces drugs, countries like the US accept a big amount of drugs, which also makes them a complice of drug traffic. Also, the delegate accuses the US for stealing in their nation, just like they stole from the countries of the northern triangle. As the delegate finishes, another one rises up. The delegate of UK supports the delegate of USA and exclaims that they also been involved with the northern triangle, exclaims that instead of countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua blame the US, they should make a big effort to work hard with all the help that other countries have give them. As the topic is coming to an end the delegates have to united and find a solution to help the chaos that has been created and help all the people that need it.