By: Grace Loidolt

The press arrived halfway through the General Assembly Plenary discussing “Our Ocean, Our Future, Our Responsibility,” stepping inside just as a suspension of the meeting reached its peak. Representatives moved in tight, urgent circles. Pages rustled. Voices overlapped. The room felt tense, crowded not by bodies, but by competing visions.

I spoke with various Representatives, and before I was satisfied, the dais called the caucus to a close. Representatives returned to their seats mid-thought and mid-sentence, carrying the full momentum of their negotiations with them.

The chair then asked if any delegation wished to bring forward a motion or deliver a speech. Almost every placard in the room shot into the air at once.

It was instantaneous, an instinctive, nearly desperate response. For a moment, the room seemed to hold its breath as the dais scanned the overwhelming number of raised placards. No one appeared willing to wait. Everyone seemed to believe their voice needed to be heard now.

The Representative from Poland rose first. Their speech landed with the calm certainty of a delegation that had been preparing long before the session began. Draft resolution AA, they explained, aimed to reinforce the International Seabed Authority by expanding scientific research and strengthening environmental protections in waters beyond national jurisdiction. The Representative warned that unregulated exploitation could lead to unnecessary tension among Member States. Their tone was measured, no theatrics, no improvisation. It was a warning laid out cleanly, like a line drawn across the sand.

Then the Representative from Afghanistan stood, and the energy in the room shifted entirely.

Where Poland’s Representatives’ remarks were controlled and technical, Afghanistan’s were expansive and forward-looking. Draft resolution GG, “Green Transition Assistance,” proposed a United Nations managed grant program to modernize ports, rebuild maritime infrastructure and create sustainable transit routes for landlocked States. Representative Riley Dahlberg of Afghanistan spoke with conviction, emphasizing that the initiative balanced development with environmental responsibility. “This program brings ports, old and new, into the twenty-first century,” he said. The Representative grounded the proposal in international law, citing UNCLOS Article 125 and General Assembly Resolution 50/97. If the Representative from Poland had mapped the ocean floor, the Representative from Afghanistan had mapped the coasts.

The Representative from Japan followed, and the tone of the room sharpened.

Representative Aliyah Houston of Japan spoke with striking rhythm, direct, poetic and disarming. The Representative described companies “pretending to care,” governments “acting like protectors while signing away protections,” and “[representatives] who promote environmentalism while supporting contradicting policies.” “True intentions always come out,” said Representative Houston. “In a speech, in a bill, somewhere.” A visible stillness settled over the room as she spoke. Some Representatives stiffened; others leaned forward. It was a speech that demanded attention rather than requesting it.

The Representative from the Republic of Korea rose next, entering the charged atmosphere with a calmer, collaborative tone. He spoke about innovation, technology and research as practical tools for solving ocean challenges. He named possible partners across continents, Japan, the United States, Brazil, Norway, the Netherlands and acknowledged their own internal debates, including national questions about whaling. Their message offered a bridge: cooperation is possible, even among sharply different visions.

When the dais eventually adjourned the session, the tension did not dissolve. Representatives spilled into the hallway, still arguing, still negotiating, still carrying the weight of the speeches that had defined the afternoon.

Outside the chamber, Japan’s Representative was the first to speak with me. Representative Houston said her intention had been to push the plenary past polished diplomatic language. “I wanted the room to confront the difference between what they claim and what they support,” she said. She confirmed that Japan was actively drafting a resolution with the Philippines. “They’re innovative, knowledgeable and a strong partner,” she said.

Later, in the after-hours caucus room, Representative Riley Dahlberg of Afghanistan expanded on draft resolution GG. Representative Dahlberg explained that the plan was not designed only for developing nations. Developed countries would benefit from modernizing outdated, environmentally harmful ports as well. He reaffirmed that sovereignty remained fully protected and identified Ethiopia as Afghanistan’s closest collaborator, though several other States had expressed interest privately.

By the time the night quieted and representatives drifted back to their rooms, the day’s central conflict had come clearly into focus.

Poland set the stage for stricter regulation, Afghanistan offered sweeping infrastructure reform, Japan demanded honesty in policymaking and Korea encouraged innovation and coalition-building. Four speeches charted four distinct directions for the future of global ocean governance. Now, the plenary must decide whether those currents will converge into a unified course, or continue pulling the room apart long after the session ends.