By: Grace Loidolt

As soon as the General Assembly Plenary shifted to Topic Two, Strengthening of the Coordination of Emergency Humanitarian Assistance of the United Nations, the room was expecting a tone of seriousness and cooperation. However, inappropriate interactions between Member States tilted the entire Committee off course.

The incident began after a procedural inquiry regarding the Representative from the United States of America’s use of a physical copy of the United States Constitution as a visual prop. “Our point of information,” DeVore said, “was simply clarifying if pulling out the Constitution of the United States is allowed under the rules of this supposedly neutral body.” As the chairs deliberated, chaos ensued. This exchange and those that followed were noticed by nearby delegations, and Representatives across the room described the entire exchange as deeply unsettling.

For example, the calling out of a Member State as communist on 23 November was said to not be a personal attack. Though, Representative Oliver Pruce of Luxembourg reflected that “You don’t get to hide behind character when you disrespect people.” The discomfort intensified when it was claimed that current immigration and deportation policies were deporting “criminals.” Representative Pruce challenged this during a point of inquiry: “I asked whether children are criminals, because children are deported.” Representative Brianna McGreer of Nepal added, “Some comments could have been withheld. They seemed more focused on getting reactions than on diplomacy.”

The chairs, after reviewing multiple reports and confirming repeated breaches of decorum, took action. It seemed the incident overshadowed all other developments, including the ongoing United States and Cuba tensions that had dominated earlier sessions. But unlike the Cuba dispute, which revolved around contested interpretations of note passing, the Palestine incident was witnessed by several delegations and corroborated publicly.

And yet, despite the intensity of the day, something remarkable happened once the disruption passed.

As the final evening session opened, with one seat empty, the temperature in the room changed. Representatives who had been shaken by the incident returned to their work with newfound focus. Representatives clustered together in circles, revising clauses, drafting language and exchanging ideas that stretched across borders and political blocs. The tension that had defined the afternoon slowly gave way to something closer to the cooperation the United Nations hopes to model.

By the session’s conclusion, countless resolution drafts had been presented, from humanitarian coordination frameworks to environmental mechanisms and procedural reforms. States that had only hours earlier been whispering in frustration were now co-sponsoring clauses, ironing out disagreements and offering amendments with a professionalism that seemed determined to reclaim the day from its earlier chaos.

Representatives expressed cautious optimism that the committee had managed to recover. Even Cuba, embroiled in its own dispute with the United States the day prior, found common ground with several states on humanitarian technology sharing.

So, as unlikely as it may have seemed, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The day’s most painful moment was not erased, nor forgotten, but it did not derail the collective work of the body. The final session proved that while a single gesture can fracture a room, it cannot define an entire conference. Cooperation is still happening. Diplomacy is still happening. And despite the shadows cast earlier in the day, representatives left the room appearing determined to build something constructive together.

In the simulation of the United Nations, and in the real one, sometimes the strongest statement is simply continuing the work.