Although finding a solution to food deserts may seem like a uniting topic, the heated debate in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee proves otherwise. There are three sides, spearheaded by Turkmenistan and Vietnam, the United Kingdom, and Russia. Although the end goal of these three papers, to resolve world hunger, is unanimous, their methods could not be more different.
R.E.S.T, founded by Russia, takes an interesting approach to this problem by proposing the implementation of smart cities in all developing countries, giving them unlimited access to fresh food, electricity, and amenities that would not typically be available to them. Although this plan sounds innocent at first glance, the Chinese delegate has exposed it rather clearly: “The People’s Republic of China believes that Russia is trying to recreate colonialism”. This bold statement truly captures the essence of the plan. Creating smart cities will not help countries become independent, it will force them to become dependent on a bigger, more wealthy, and more powerful country.
F.A.C.E.T, created by Vietnam and Turkmenistan, takes the opposite approach. In an attempt to grant countries autonomy, it proposes a plan that takes into account all aspects of a certain country, developed or developing, to create a custom-made plan for that area. This idea is well thought through, except for the fact that some countries do not have stable governments, and may not be able to support the new influx of food, building materials, and educational programs. China believes that although it is a good idea, in theory, it would not work out in reality.
The plan that creates a happy medium between the two is T.R.I.C.C.S, established by the United Kingdom and endorsed by China. It proposes collecting funds to distribute to help all developing and developed countries, allowing each country to ask for what they need and that need to be met. In the end, the most comprehensive plan is the T.R.I.C.C.S plan, which China fully supports.