In The Words Of The Chairperson

Shouryadipta Sarkar, Chairperson of the UNGA-DISEC is interviewed.

The International Press interviewed Shouryadipta Sarkar, Chair-Person of the United Nations General Assembly Disarmament and International Security Committee (UNGA-DISEC) at the Global Leadership and Strategy Summit 2015 (GLASS ’15).
Shourya is a versatile debater, and easily amongst the most respected members of the Indian Model United Nations (MUN) circuit, with the unique ability to ensure that debate in a Council is always channelized in the right direction, and remains engaging and intriguing throughout. Excerpts of the interview-

Q: Why is Model United Nations (MUNing) your favorite form of debate?

A: I have tried various forms of debate, including Parliamentary debating, (both Asians and British Parliamentary) and conventional debating, but I have always held MUNing closest to my heart because I believe MUNing is the most complete form of debate. MUNs teach you how to negotiate and swing the Council and your favor; and also require you to be well read, because every assertion or argument made in Council necessarily needs the backing of legitimate facts and figures. It is a form of debating that leaves you highly satisfied intellectually.

Q: You have been a member of the Executive Board several times at VIT now, what is your opinion on GLASS ’15?

A: I have been a member of the Executive Board at VIT twice before, at VITMUN 2013 and VITMUN 2014, and I was Chairperson of relatively smaller Councils. The quality of debate was extremely good both times. I am extremely happy that the United Nations General Assembly is being simulated this year at GLASS ’15, and I am happy with the standard of debate.

Q: What are your personal views of the agenda?

A: Legally, I believe the power to decide whether or not to intervene in the internal conflict of another nation lies in the hands of the more powerful nations. Despite the Security Council (UNSC) being responsible for these decisions, it is a body subject to the views of the more powerful nations, considering their ability to veto. Intervention in another state’s internal conflicts is always carried out in self-interest, and never for the protection of human rights or the greater good. It is always the greater power that decides.

Q: Several nations in Council spoke about the need to establish a new body that will have representation from all world countries to ensure that the intervening nation in any internal conflict does not exploit its power…you opinions on the feasibility of the same?

A: This move is extremely impractical, and will be as ineffective as the Lokpal bill…As far as the need for a checking body is required, the United Nations already exists in status quo. There is no point in constituting a body to check another checking body (the UN). That would be as useless as inventing the wheel all over again.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.