Joseph Steimetz   (Ambassador of the USA)

Saturday, the 11^th of March 2017

 

The third day of the MUN falls on a Saturday and because I am a religious Jew I had the Sabbath in which I have to refrain myself from using any sort of electronics or participate in the sessions for almost the entire day, so this diary will be shorter than the previous ones.

 

However I did attend the last hour, hour and a half.

 

Eventhough I’ve missed most of the day and wasn’t able to read the ongoing working papers, it was still a worthyfull day for me since I’ve heard some new issues being worked on in which I’ll gladly participate on Sunday.

 

That’s basically it.

 

Shabat shalom and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

 

---

Jonas Van Orshoven   (Ambassadeur van Rusland)

Zaterdag 11 maart 2017

 

Met zaterdag is de dag aangebroken waarop het allemaal concreet moet beginnen worden. Als we zondag enkel nog de laatste details willen uitwerken, is zaterdag de dag om de grote consensus te vinden.

 

Gisterenavond had ik samen met de Chinese delegatie een working paper opgesteld met onze visie op verschillende belangrijke topics. Zo wilden we de punten die voor ons het belangrijkst zijn, naar de voorgrond schuiven. Dat plan viel een beetje in het water toen de Australische delegatie vanochtend haar eigen working paper introduceerde voordat wij de kans hadden gehad om de onze voor te stellen.

 

Zo kwamen de agendapunten die Australië had voorgesteld, eerst ter discussie. Over verschillende punten leek consensus te bestaan, maar op andere punten bleven we maar discussies herhalen die eigenlijk de voorbije twee dagen al gevoerd waren. Hetzelfde gebeurde toen China en ik onze working paper voorstelden. De uitgesproken Russisch-Chinese standpunten over discussies die al gevoerd waren, leidden tot felle reacties en het overdoen van reeds gevoerde debatten.

 

Tegen de middag hadden we op die manier wel de belangrijkste topics geïdentificeerd, maar het was erg onduidelijk welke vooruitgang we op die topics hadden geboekt. Aangezien de VS afwezig was en Australië één van de meest productieve delegaties bleek te worden, ben ik met de delegatie van Australië begonnen aan een working paper waarin enkel de consensusstandpunten van de voorbije discussies werden opgenomen.

 

Dat bleek een erg succesvolle strategie om verschillende redenen. Eerst en vooral kregen China en ik één van de meest drijvende krachten van ons comité mee achter een gezamenlijk project, in plaats van in verschillende sporen naast mekaar te werken.

 

Ten tweede was Rusland op zaterdag (aangezien de VS afwezig was) één van de minst progressieve actoren. Door enkel de consensusstandpunten op te nemen in de working paper, werd het resultaat van verschillende discussies gevat in een statement dat aanvaardbaar was voor China en mezelf (en dus veel minder verregaand was dan sommige delegaties zouden hebben gewild).

 

Ten derde liet het ons erg makkelijk toe om de discussie weer te focussen op de punten die voor Rusland belangrijk zijn: missile defense systems, kernwapens in niet-nucleaire NAVO-lidstaten en wapens die in de ruimte zouden kunnen worden geplaatst.

 

Toch bleken verschillende kleinere landen (die ook net een working paper hadden voorgesteld die een beetje in de schaduw kwam te staan van de ‘consensus working paper’) een beetje gefrustreerd doordat zij het gevoel hadden dat hun bezorgdheden te weinig werden opgenomen in de werkzaamheden. Gelukkig hebben de voorbije avondactiviteiten ons inderdaad wat krediet gegeven bij vele landen en konden we hen overtuigen om via nieuwe discussies te proberen hun standpunten in de working paper te krijgen.

 

Zo konden we de dag beëindigen met een working paper die al heel sterk leek op een draft resolution en die opmerkelijk goed was afgestemd op de Russische onderhandelingsagenda.

 

---

Joyce Ibens   (President of Romania)

Saturday, the 11^th of March 2017

 

I can honestly say that the European Council had a very productive day. Slovenia, Lithuania and myself put forward a draft resolution on the general wellbeing of citizens with a focus on modern slavery, human trafficking and forced labour. Belgium, Luxembourg and Denmark also discussed on a proposal for a resolution, sponsored by Austria, Greece, Ireland. Their draft resolution was in my opinion very elaborated, so a thorough discussion was in order.

 

We started an unmoderated caucus to examine both resolutions in order to redefine them. I cannot informally share the specific content yet, but I can tell you that we focused on political and decision-making empowerment through obligated representation of both genders. A reform of education on gender stereotyping and social awareness of gender equality was one of our most important topics as well. Especially the head of state of Slovenia and myself persisted on efficient socio-economical re-integration of human traffic and domestic violence victims. I can fortunately say that most of the delegates were quite fresh today.

 

Yesterday evening we all participated at a quiz. I formed a team with the heads of states of Spain, Greece, the Netherlands and Denmark. A bit hungover admittedly, we ended up second to last, not that bad right? Some other delegates did go out afterwards and enjoyed a great party. This lead to their absence this morning. I was actually late as well so I was punished by the chairs together with Hungary, Belgium and Finland. We were obliged to come up with a poem regarding our topic on gender equality. Fortunately the head of State of Luxembourg saved us on this by writing an exquisite text for us!

 

Besides being productive we were also very excited for our Lustrum gala tonight. During lunch break I invited all delegates for some drinks and some games. Actually, I have to get ready now so more news on the gala tomorrow!

 

Noroc! **

 

 

** Cheers in Romanian

 

---

Pauline Theunis   (Presidente van Slovenië)

Zaterdag 11 maart 2017

 

De quiz gisteren was enorm leuk. We zijn tweedes geëindigd, tweedes in omgekeerde richting welteversaan ;-).

 

Vandaag weer een nieuwe dag, we hebben veel motions ingediend. Roemenië en Slovenië hebben ervoor gepleit om prostitutie te depenaliseren. Eigenlijk was dit vooral een boodschap naar Litouwen toe, aangezien de rest van de landen prostitutie reeds gelegaliseerd heeft.

Het debat ging er vandaag ook veel efficiënter aan toe. Er werd een consensus bereikt over de meeste punten in onze draftpaper. Het punt van quota's kwam weer naar boven wat resulteerde in een verhitte discussie. Finland en Ierland waren veel te laat vandaag, jammer.

 

Nu maken we ons allemaal klaar om naar het galabal te gaan, voordrink bij Roemenië, dat kan niet slecht zijn (wodka in de hand). Op naar morgen!

Jonas Van Orshoven   (Ambassador of Russia)

Friday, the 10^th of March 2017

 

On the second day of the General Assembly of the United Nations we were a lot more focussed than on the first. The discussions were more about concrete issues which proved a good way to provoke lively debates.

 

A wide range of topics were discussed, ranging from health effects and environmental effects of nuclear weapons to preventing nuclear weapons to fall in the hands of non-governmental (ie terrorist) organizations.

 

Although it was possible to find some allies in most of the discussions held, there were also some proposals that troubled me deeply. For example, a proposal was discussed which imposed on nuclear powers a sanction (non-nuclear states call it a tax) to pay an amount of money per warhead. Such rules would form an unprecedented violation of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and are therefore not open to discussion. My attempts to prevent this discussion failed and that's how we had a significant amount of time wasted on a topic that never would have been passed through the Security Council since Russia and the United States have a veto right.

 

Unfortunately this was about the only point on which I could follow the US today. Yesterday, the US seemed to go along with the withdrawal of its nuclear weapons from the territory of its non-nuclear allies. Today, however, the United States were less willing to cooperate and have made a few statements that are regrettable.

 

Yesterday I saw the opportunity to present myself as a delegation very much willing to cooperate on partial nuclear disarmament. This stance has brought me some goodwill, although Russia has of course important conditions before it can proceed to such a partial disarmament. Those conditions are not to be sneezed at, but because of my constructive approach yesterday, most delegations seem willing to elaborate on those conditions.

 

One of these conditions is a ban on the use and placement of arms (nuclear or conventional) in outer space. This issue remains one of Russia's priorities and was discussed shortly after noon. Unfortunately at that point the attention waned and some delegations seemed unwilling to deal with the issue in a serious way. Still, the proposal will be crucial when they want to write a resolution for me to agree on.

 

Two working papers were introduced at the end of the sessions, one of which was written by myself and the Chinese delegation. We hope we will be able to use this paper tomorrow which would enable us to focus even more on concrete topics during negotiations. The fact that those topics are chosen by myself and a major ally, will hopefully allow us to lead the discussion to issues we consider important.

 

The other working paper was submitted by the Australian delegation. As I found out yesterday, Australia sent a very well-prepared delegation whose proposals don't always match Russia's. At first glance Australia's representative has some ideas I can live with, but there are also some that are not appropriate and I certainly do not want them to be in the final resolution. Hopefully I can use the evening activities tonight to convince as much delegations as possible to discuss our working paper first instead of focussing the discussion on the ideas of my Australian colleague.

---

Joseph Steimetz   (Ambassadeur van de VS)

Friday, the 10^th of March 2017

 

Maybe its good to start this diary with a few phrases about last nights pub crawl:

If there is one thing that the pub crawl has learnt us, after a long day full of negotiations and discussions not being able to lead to any agreement nor resolution, it's something we all might have learnt in chemistry class: alcohol is a solution, if not the solution. It was a nice surprise seeing delegates who were arch enemies by day, coming along, dancing together, laughing and joking together and even singing together after a few drops of alcohol.

 

With that being said, lets get back to business!

 

The day has already started with some heavy negotiations and discussions going on between the delegates, especially between the nuclear powers on one side, and all the other ones on the other. It is clear that quite some countries are hoping for a long term solution and striving for the entire disarmament of all sorts of nuclear weapons/warheads/… whatsoever, as they have let us all know in some of the moderated caucuses throughout the day.

At the moment – this is for the near future, and as it looks for it the long run as well – the United States doesn't want to hear of any sort of total decomposition, disarmament of all of its nuclear weapons etc. That would, not in a million years, be an option for the US.

 

Before we left for our daily lunch break, the chairs have once again urged us not to come late for the next session after the break since there would be “consequences and punishments” for the delegates who would dare to arrive late, even if that meant only one minute late.

 

Me being me, plus me representing our most beloved number one president, President Trump, I saw it as my duty and honour to do so as it would only be fitting to do. So in total Trump style I refused to come on time and entered the conference room exactly one minute late to the next session.

 

As expected, I together with my fellow partners/delegates (those who also arrived late) were all being called to the front of the room and were told to perform a dance in front of the chairs, delegates and the rest of the world since there was a camera guy standing there filming it all with a camera as big as the M1 A2 Abraham tanks being used by the US military.

The song we had to dance to was the Ketchup song by Las Ketchup. It is safe to say the we have all, miserably failed in dancing to its tunes.

 

 

As the day passed by the debates starting to get more and more fierce, some of the delegates might have started to get a bit tired from all of the debating going on.

Best example would be myself: as I was not fully concentrated during one of the afternoon caucuses, I made, in total Trump fashion, a remark to the delegate of Nigeria about her use of words, and suggested she might be better off taking some English language courses to improve it. I know, it wasn’t a nice nor polite thing to do, and believe me, on a personal note it still bothers me and I have extensively apologized for it both in writing and in public.

 

After a long day full of fruitful and important discussion I am glad to see that we are all working on a working paper.

 

Have a good day, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

 

---

Joyce Ibens   (President of Romania)

Friday, the 10^th of March 2017

 

Today we started our committee session with a slight hangover thanks to the amazing pub crawl we had with all the delegates. I can admit that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands and myself quite enjoyed the Belgian beers.

 

However, that did not take away that we take gender equality seriously. We concluded our discussion of yesterday because the majority wanted to move on to the other topics. Today we focused on gender based violence and human trafficking more. We all agreed that the majority of victims that suffer violence are female, but when talking about social awareness we believe that both men and women should be incorporated in those campaigns. Romania wants to raise awareness that men can be victims of sexual or domestic violence as well.

 

Hungary started a conversation on the influence of the increased migration flow on human trafficking, but other delegates, including myself, did not find it productive to get into a discussion on whether or not to close borders when talking about gender equality.

 

Human trafficking was the most important topic we talked about. Tomorrow we're planning on starting some resolutions that include concrete measures on human trafficking and gender based violence.

 

---

Pauline Theunis   (President of Slovenia)

Friday, the 10^th of March 2017

 

The day began with a vigorous debate, but this quickly changed and led to many statements but few solutions.

 

Hungary has revised its position on quotas, which was conducive to the draft paper. Romania and Slovenia often have the same views as us, which helps enormously in pressing our ideas forward. They launched many relevant points that helped the debates. Finland came out of her shell and proposed a lot of measures that we can all learn from. It also supports the draft which we are preparing.

 

Luxembourg also contributed a lot to the conversation, as did Belgium, maybe sometimes even a little too much. Towards the end you could tell that everyone was tired and we started to argue in a circle.

 

The overall theme today was human trafficking. Because the differences between countries are so large and each Member State wants to take very different measures, the conversation went a bit stiff. The collaboration between the Netherlands, Romania, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Slovenia for the final proposal is taking shape. Let's hope that by tomorrow we are all ready to come up with some practical solutions that everyone can agree on.

 

I feel that the many formal rules prevent us to have a real full-fledged debate instead of firing statement after statement, so I think tommorow we should start a debate on the advantages and disadvantages of a moderated vs an unmoderated caucus.

Jonas Van Orshoven   (Ambassadeur van Rusland)

Vrijdag 10 maart 2017

 

De tweede dag in de General Assembly van de Verenigde Naties had een stuk meer focus dan de eerste. De discussies die werden gehouden, hadden meer concrete onderwerpen en dat bleek een goede manier om levendige debatten uit te lokken.

 

Een wijd spectrum aan onderwerpen werd besproken, gaande van de gezondheids- en milieueffecten van kernwapens tot het vermijden dat kernwapens in de handen van niet-gouvernementele (lees: terroristische) organisaties vallen.

 

Hoewel het mogelijk was om medestanders te vinden in de meeste discussies die werden gehouden, waren er ook enkele voorstellen die me diep verontrustten. Zo kwam een voorstel aan bod waarbij nucleaire mogendheden een sanctie (niet-nucleaire staten noemen het een belasting) moeten betalen per kernkop. Zoiets zou een ongeziene inbreuk vormen op de soevereiniteit van de Russische Federatie en is daarom onbespreekbaar. Mijn pogingen om de discussie te voorkomen, faalden en daarom hebben we aanzienlijk wat tijd verspild aan een onderwerp dat nooit voorbij de Veiligheidsraad geraakt vanwege de veto’s van Rusland en de Verenigde Staten.

 

Jammer genoeg was dat ook zowat het enige waarop ik vandaag samen met de VS een standpunt kon innemen. Gisteren leek de VS erg gemakkelijk mee te gaan in de terugtrekking van haar kernwapens uit het grondgebied van haar niet-nucleaire bondgenoten. Vandaag was de VS helaas minder bereid tot medewerking en heeft het een paar uitspraken gedaan die op zijn minst betreurenswaardig zijn.

 

Gisteren heb ik de kans gezien om me op te stellen als een delegatie die erg bereid is om mee te werken aan gedeeltelijke nucleaire ontwapening. Dat heeft wat goodwill opgeleverd, hoewel Rusland natuurlijk belangrijke voorwaarden heeft voor het kan overgaan tot zo’n gedeeltelijke ontwapening. Die voorwaarden zijn niet min, maar doordat ik me gisteren constructief heb gedragen, lijken de meeste delegaties bereid om mee te werken aan het invullen van die voorwaarden.

 

Eén van die voorwaarden is een ban op het gebruik en de plaatsing van wapens (nucleair of conventioneel) in de ruimte. Dit punt blijft één van Ruslands prioriteiten en werd even na de middag behandeld. Helaas verslapte de focus op dat moment en leken sommige delegaties niet bereid om het onderwerp op een serieuze manier te behandelen. Toch blijft dat punt iets dat de volgende dagen essentieel zal zijn om een resolutie tot stand te laten komen waar ik me bij kan aansluiten.

 

Op het einde van de sessies werden twee working papers geïntroduceerd, waarvan één door mezelf en de Chinese delegatie is geschreven. We hopen dat we deze paper morgen zullen kunnen gebruiken om de gesprekken nog meer op specifieke topics te kunnen focussen. Dat die onderwerpen uitgekozen zijn door mezelf en een belangrijke bondgenoot, zal ons hopelijk in staat stellen om de discussie toe te spitsen op de punten die wij belangrijk vinden.

 

De andere working paper werd door de Australische delegatie ingestuurd. Zoals gisteren is gebleken, stuurde Australië een erg goed voorbereide delegatie die niet op alle vlakken op dezelfde lijn staat als Rusland. Op het eerste zicht heeft Australië's vertegenwoordiger een aantal ideeën waarbij ik me wel kan aansluiten, maar er zijn er ook enkele die niet opportuun zijn en die ik zeker niet in de definitieve resolutie wil zien verschijnen. Hopelijk kan ik de avondactiviteiten van vanavond gebruiken om zo veel mogelijk delegaties ervan te overtuigen eerst onze working paper te behandelen en de discussie niet toe te spitsen op de ideeën van mijn Australische collega.

 

---

Joseph Steimetz   (Ambassadeur van de VS)

Friday, the 10^th of March 2017

 

Maybe its good to start this diary with a few phrases about last nights pub crawl:

If there is one thing that the pub crawl has learnt us, after a long day full of negotiations and discussions not being able to lead to any agreement nor resolution, it's something we all might have learnt in chemistry class: alcohol is a solution, if not the solution. It was a nice surprise seeing delegates who were arch enemies by day, coming along, dancing together, laughing and joking together and even singing together after a few drops of alcohol.

 

With that being said, lets get back to business!

 

The day has already started with some heavy negotiations and discussions going on between the delegates, especially between the nuclear powers on one side, and all the other ones on the other. It is clear that quite some countries are hoping for a long term solution and striving for the entire disarmament of all sorts of nuclear weapons/warheads/… whatsoever, as they have let us all know in some of the moderated caucuses throughout the day.

At the moment – this is for the near future, and as it looks for it the long run as well – the United States doesn't want to hear of any sort of total decomposition, disarmament of all of its nuclear weapons etc. That would, not in a million years, be an option for the US.

 

Before we left for our daily lunch break, the chairs have once again urged us not to come late for the next session after the break since there would be “consequences and punishments” for the delegates who would dare to arrive late, even if that meant only one minute late.

 

Me being me, plus me representing our most beloved number one president, President Trump, I saw it as my duty and honour to do so as it would only be fitting to do. So in total Trump style I refused to come on time and entered the conference room exactly one minute late to the next session.

 

As expected, I together with my fellow partners/delegates (those who also arrived late) were all being called to the front of the room and were told to perform a dance in front of the chairs, delegates and the rest of the world since there was a camera guy standing there filming it all with a camera as big as the M1 A2 Abraham tanks being used by the US military.

The song we had to dance to was the Ketchup song by Las Ketchup. It is safe to say the we have all, miserably failed in dancing to its tunes.

 

 

As the day passed by the debates starting to get more and more fierce, some of the delegates might have started to get a bit tired from all of the debating going on.

Best example would be myself: as I was not fully concentrated during one of the afternoon caucuses, I made, in total Trump fashion, a remark to the delegate of Nigeria about her use of words, and suggested she might be better off taking some English language courses to improve it. I know, it wasn’t a nice nor polite thing to do, and believe me, on a personal note it still bothers me and I have extensively apologized for it both in writing and in public.

 

After a long day full of fruitful and important discussion I am glad to see that we are all working on a working paper.

 

Have a good day, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

 

---

Joyce Ibens   (President of Romania)

Friday, the 10^th of March 2017

 

Today we started our committee session with a slight hangover thanks to the amazing pub crawl we had with all the delegates. I can admit that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands and myself quite enjoyed the Belgian beers.

 

However, that did not take away that we take gender equality seriously. We concluded our discussion of yesterday because the majority wanted to move on to the other topics. Today we focused on gender based violence and human trafficking more. We all agreed that the majority of victims that suffer violence are female, but when talking about social awareness we believe that both men and women should be incorporated in those campaigns. Romania wants to raise awareness that men can be victims of sexual or domestic violence as well.

 

Hungary started a conversation on the influence of the increased migration flow on human trafficking, but other delegates, including myself, did not find it productive to get into a discussion on whether or not to close borders when talking about gender equality.

 

Human trafficking was the most important topic we talked about. Tomorrow we're planning on starting some resolutions that include concrete measures on human trafficking and gender based violence.

 

---

Pauline Theunis   (Presidente van Slovenië)

Vrijdag 10 maart 2017

 

De dag begon met een krachtig debat, maar dit ebde snel weg en veranderde in veel statements met weinig oplossingen.

 

Hongarije heeft zijn standpunt herzien over quota's, wat wel bevorderend was voor de draftpaper. Roemenië en Slovenië hebben vaak dezelfde standpunten als wij, wat onze communicatie enorm vergemakkelijkt. Ze hebben ook heel veel relevante punten aangebracht die de debatten hielpen. Finland is uit haar schelp gekomen en heeft enorm veel maatregelen aangereikt waar wij allen veel van kunnen leren. Ook zij ondersteunt de draft die wij aan het opstellen zijn.

 

Luxemburg heeft ook veel bijgedragen aan het gesprek, alsook België, soms misschien zelfs iets te veel. Tegen het einde merkte je wel dat iedereen moe werd en de debatten in cirkeltjes bleven draaien.

 

Het algemene onderwerp was vandaag mensenhandel. Omdat de verschillen tussen de landen zo groot zijn en elke lidstaat erg verschillende maatregelen wil nemen, liep de conversatie wel wat stroef. De samenwerking tussen Nederland, Roemenië, Oostenrijk, Denemarken, Finland en Slovenië voor het eindvoorstel begint vorm te krijgen. Laat ons hopen dat we tegen morgen allemaal voldoende opgewarmd zijn om een paar concrete oplossingen aan te bieden waar iedereen zich in kan vinden.

 

Ik heb het gevoel dat de vele formele regels ons tegenhouden om een echt volwaardig debat te voeren in plaats van het afvuren van statement na statement, dus daar – de discussie over een moderated vs unmoderated caucus – zal morgen ook eens over gesproken moet worden.

Joseph Steimetz   (Ambassador of the President of the USA)

My name is Joseph, I’m 23 years old and I am competing in this years lustrum edition of the AnwerpMUN. This is in fact the second time for me to join the AntwerpMUN and as a good bottle of wine, as it gets older, it gets better!

 

I have the honor of being the representative of the United States of America for the United Nations General Assembly and I’ve been asked to write down a small summary of how my day has been and what is going on in a MUN. So where should I start?

 

Maybe I’ll just start by explaining the topic of our committee, which is briefly the context of nuclear weapons in international politics.

 

We started the day with the official opening of the AntwerpMUN 2017 with speeches given by the president of the AntwerpMUN organization and the vice dean of the university of Antwerp. Once all of that had passed we started with the actual committee session.

 

I must say, during the first half, the committee was quite sleepy or quiet. There weren’t too many motions or points being passed by to the chair. Nevertheless it was still a very intense and fruitful day, with a lot of notes being passed around. When I received the email stating that I had been selected in representing the United States of America at the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), I imagined I’d be receiving plenty of notes, but I did not expect it to be that many! Most of the time I was just sitting there and replying to all of the notes I have received from almost every delegate in the room.

 

The plan of the United States together with Russia and all of the other nuclear powers, is to come to an agreement on the possible further non-proliferation and gradually strive to a mutual partial disarmament between all of the nuclear powers. I must say, we are taking the first steps towards actually achieving that, but the MUN has just started and we still have a long way ahead when it comes to working out in detail the conditions of that agreement.

 

As I’m writing this summary I’m nearly falling asleep from fatigue after all of the work we have done today. But I do so, with a smile as big as our (USA) president’s ego, which says a lot of how big it is.

 

So far day one out of four has ended, looking forward to the rest of the MUN. Let me just finish with a quote by President Trump: “Let’s make AntwerpMUN great again!”

---

 

Jonas Van Orshoven   (Ambassador of Russia)

The first day in the General Assembly was characterized by a lot of testing the waters, and delegates trying to find allies for the different goals they have for this four-day session. This resulted in a somewhat chaotic and unstructured start. We held a lot of informal debates to enable delegates to discuss issues more freely with each other in little groups, but this also fragmented the debate, as some groups focused on other issues than others. The chairs are trying their best to guide the less vocal delegations into actively sharing their opinions, because a lot of debates aren’t as polarized as you would expect for a first day. Maybe some delegations will take tonight as an opportunity to do more research to support their arguments and statements.

 

As soon as an opportunity presented itself, I started working with the delegations of China and the United States to address the nuclear-sharing missions that place nuclear weapons in countries that don’t possess nuclear technology. This proved to be quite fruitful and we succeeded in finding some common ground on the topic, which the other delegations in the committee seemed, at least for now, to approve of.

 

The delegate of Australia, however, has proven to be particularly tough and, especially during informal discussions, seems to find it very undesirable to diminish the range of the US’s ‘nuclear umbrella’. I should be able to come up with a solid strategy to either keep them happy or focus on other things during the informal discussions.

 

From what the first day of discussions has taught me, a lot of the non-nuclear States will try to impose inspection obligations on the nuclear States and in particular Russia and the USA. As a matter of fact, Russia and the USA already carry out inspections on each other’s territories so there is no need for an extension of the inspection regime under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

My arguments to that effect, seemed to fall on deaf ears and it looks like some of the non-nuclear States will try to form a bloc against the nuclear States. I hope these delegations don’t forget that Russia, as well as the US, has a veto in the Security Council so any resolution that doesn’t incorporate our concerns on the matter, will carry little weight in there.

 

So, a major point that I expect to be raised tomorrow is the fact that the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not provide inspections in nuclear-weapon States. Although I understand this can be a sore spot for those States, it is not in the best interest of the Russian Federation to give up this much of its national sovereignty on a crucial military issue. This is a point in which I stand united with the USA, which is one of the more vocal delegations in the committee. We should be able to hold the other delegations off for the next few days, but it might cost us a lot of goodwill for other topics in which we would like to achieve progress. But tonight we have a pub crawl planned, so that might be a good opportunity to gain some allies for the next few days!

---

 

Joyce Ibens   (President of Romania)

Today I woke up as the head of state of Romania – up and ready to discuss important matters with my fellow members of the European Council. On my way to our location where the committee sessions are to be held, I encountered a colleague: the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Together we chatted a bit and upon arrival we registered. After the opening ceremony, our debates could officially begin.

 

For the next four days we are to discuss on how to implement gender equality in the European Union, institutions and society. Moreover we will exchange views on some clear pervasive problems such as countering modern slavery and forced labour in the EU. Before lunch break we got comfortable with the subjects by all stating our own personal stances on the issues and by elaborating on future measures to be taken. We talked about very diverse subjects such as the effectiveness of quotas implemented to give preference to women on the work force, both institutional as in private companies. Consequently we examined on how we could improve the educational system in favour of horizontal gender equality.

 

Afterwards we enjoyed a delicious lunch at the Komida but we did not hold off on further discussions. On the contrary, gender equality lead to some heated conversations while eating. After our lunch we continued on other matters such as gender-based violence and human trafficking where women remain a vulnerable social group. The majority of the heads of states complied on working together as a strong force, as a community in order to erase illegal criminal activities that affect vulnerable social groups. Hungary took a stance by saying they wanted to close the borders and raise border controls, but there was no consensus in the council on this proposition.

 

We took a small break, where me and some other delegates enjoyed the opportunity to get some fresh air. Together with the heads of states of Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece and Austria, we acknowledged that we wanted some structure in our agenda for the next days. After our break, during the follow-up session we all agreed upon to reform our agenda in order to have a clear overview on what should be discussed today and the following days.

 

Later a heated discussion emerged between the Netherlands and myself forming a similar opinion and Belgium and Austria on the other side. I completely agreed with the Netherlands that there should be a revision of the paternity and maternity rights, where parents could decide themselves on how to plan their leave before and post birth. Eventually we worked out a resolution on the sensibilisation of gender roles by funding awareness campaigns. There was a clear consensus that this was necessary in order to change the mentality in gender equality.

 

At the end of our sessions, we all decided to table the subject to tomorrow morning in order to come to a distinctive resolution on the subject. But besides those serious matters, it was time to let our hair down. All fellow delegates of the European Council, General Assembly, The World Trade Organization and the United Nations Security Council will enjoy a pub-crawl tonight! Lets hope we will be energetic enough tomorrow to continue our committee sessions.

---

 

Pauline Theunis  (President of Slovenia)

De first day of the Antwerp MUN is just behind us. After the opening ceremony everybody immediately threw themselves into the negotiations. Since Slovenia has already devoted itself enormously when it comes to gender equality, it shows in the results. With an eighth place we have already achieved a lot in closing the gender gap. However, in the statistics one other country stands out: Finland. Every country can learn from what they achieved in recent years. Today we discussed the usefulness of quotas, human trafficking, the equalization of paternity and maternity leave and as a consequence, I was expecting a from Finland, since they already found a lot of solutions back home. Unfortunately, Finland remainde rather silent.

 

Perhaps because we started debating at random without structuring our points of discussion. As this was evident to every representative, in the afternoon we were able to agree on the items to be schudeled on our agenda for tomorrow.

 

Convenient, because now everybody is able to read up on the topics. Hungary arguably has worked itself in the spotlights today, since it presented itself as a country where traditions and traditional role patterns still take priority over gender equality. Apparently they don't want gender quota, but do want to pursue gender equality in other ways. Alternative proposals, however, were never formulated.

 

Hungary also pointed out that they are often the source of human trafficking and that they would like to receive (financial) support from other countries in tackling this problem. In Slovenia, this is less of a problem, but as human beings is obviously not confined to national borders, we are certainly willing to reach out. Also Luxembourg gave it's opinion when they joined me, representing Slovenia, when I pointed out the problem of horizontal and vertical segregation in the labor market. To us this is still a significant problem as only one third of the senior positions is filled in by women. Hungary came with a possible solution: focussing on the education system and rouse their intereset for the industrial sector as they often choose the services industry.

 

Another perspective on the issue came from Lithuania. It stated that the discussion is often focussed on women, thus covering only half of the problem. Men can be encouraged too to work in the services industry and to help women. Because we support the 'HeforShe' campaign, indeed encouraging men to support women, we could only agree. Belgium with a good solution as well: the eradication of stereotypes in education. A man can be a nurse as well as a women can be a sturdy construction worker. In short, food for thought.

Vijf jaar studentenvertegenwoordiging heb ik achter de kiezen. Vijf jaar en ettelijke keren met de neus tegen de muur lopen. Het is immers niet vanzelfsprekend om een goede balans te vinden tussen én een goede studentenvertegenwoordiger (stuver) zijn én een goede student. Naar welke kant de balans overhelt, is een persoonlijke keuze. Wanneer van hogerhand echter restricties op deze keuze worden gelegd – met name door het opleggen van verplichte aanwezigheden – kan de vraag gesteld worden in welke mate een geëngageerde student nog bewegingsvrijheid heeft. Het staat buiten kijf dat wanneer je je kandidaat stelt, je enkele verplichtingen aangaat. Maar moet dit ten koste gaan van je studie? Mogen en kunnen we nog een leven hebben naast ons engagement als stuver? Wordt onze inzet bovendien enkel bepaald door het aantal uren dat we in vergaderzalen spenderen?

 

Ik stel vast dat stuvers van verschillende campussen zich moeilijk in elkaars schoenen kunnen verplaatsen.

 

Het statuut van de studentenvertegenwoordiger zou een oplossing moeten zijn om dit balanceren gemakkelijker te maken. Dankzij dit statuut krijgen stuvers immers de mogelijkheid om lessen te verlaten om hun manda(a)t(en) ten volle te kunnen uitvoeren. De invoering van het statuut is inderdaad een welgekomen ondersteuning, zeker voor studenten die meerdere mandaten op zich nemen. Wat naar mijn mening echter niet voldoende in rekening wordt gebracht, zijn de verschillen tussen de opleidingen. De ene opleiding heeft meer flexibiliteit en bewegingsvrijheid dan de andere. Daar waar sommigen gemakkelijk een uurtje vrij kunnen maken, is het voor anderen telkens een gepuzzel om aanwezig te kunnen zijn op die ene belangrijke vergadering. Opleidingen waarin verplichte practica aan bod komen, kunnen bijvoorbeeld niet of slechts gedeeltelijk gebruik maken van het statuut. Zo hebben deze stuvers het recht om lessen te missen, maar moeten verplichte practica wel gevolgd worden. Bijgevolg kunnen deze studenten niet altijd en overal aanwezig zijn. Dit fenomeen blijkt binnen de groep van stuvers niet altijd even goed begrepen te worden. Ik stel vast dat stuvers van verschillende campussen zich moeilijk in elkaars schoenen kunnen verplaatsen. Wanneer problemen over aanwezigheden worden aangekaart, wordt maar al te vaak met het statuut gewapperd, terwijl het niet altijd van toepassing is.

 

Laten we goede stuvers vertrekken omdat ze – al dan niet moedwillig – te veel hooi op hun vork namen?

 

Samen met enkele collega’s stel ik mij bovendien de vraag of aanwezigheid werkelijk een maatstaf is voor de betrokkenheid van de stuver. Zijn de uren die je buiten de vergaderingen in je mandaat steekt niet minstens even waardevol? Voorbereidend werk en contacten met professoren (zeker op opleidingsspecifiek niveau) zijn niet te onderschatten. Dit in het bijzonder voor stuvers die vaak drie of meer mandaten (vaak op verschillende beleidsniveaus) moeten zien te combineren. Het was dan ook een slag in het gezicht toen ik las dat de Studentenraad stuvers die naar hun mening niet genoeg aanwezig zijn, wil bannen van de kieslijst voor volgend academiejaar. Moeten studenten daadwerkelijk bestraft worden omdat ze misschien één van hun vele mandaten niet kunnen bolwerken? Laten we goede stuvers vertrekken omdat ze – al dan niet moedwillig – te veel hooi op hun vork namen? Zou men in de eerste plaats niet beter op zoek gaan naar de oorzaak van afwezigheden in plaats van onmiddellijk te oordelen en vergelijkingen te maken met anderen? Dit blijkt een moeilijke oefening te zijn, waarbij individuele gevallen op weinig bijval kunnen rekenen. Ik vind dit bijzonder jammer. Ondanks goede bedoelingen krijgen sommigen het etiket opgespeld ‘niet geëngageerd’ te zijn, terwijl het tegendeel waar is. Communicatie is naar mijn mening de oplossing, maar dan wel langs twee kanten. Meer begrip en nuance voor de stuverwerking binnen de verschillende faculteiten is wenselijk, verdeeldheid is immers niet de oplossing.

 

 

 

Laura Buyssens – 2^e Master Biomedische Wetenschappen

Gedurende mijn hele opleiding ben ik op alle mogelijke beleidsniveaus actief geweest als studentenvertegenwoordiger. Zowel op opleidingsspecifiek niveau (onderwijscommissie BMW, faculteitsraad FBD en CIKO-raad) als op centraal niveau (Studentenraad en Raad Dienstverlening) heb ik getracht mijn steentje bij te dragen. Het is nu tijd om de fakkel door te geven aan nieuwe, gedreven studenten die op gepassioneerde wijze hun medestudenten zullen vertegenwoordigen.

Joseph Steimetz   (Ambassador of the USA)

My name is Joseph, I’m 23 years old and I am competing in this years lustrum edition of the AnwerpMUN. This is in fact the second time for me to join the AntwerpMUN and as a good bottle of wine, as it gets older, it gets better!

 

I have the honor of being the representative of the United States of America for the United Nations General Assembly and I’ve been asked to write down a small summary of how my day has been and what is going on in a MUN. So where should I start?

 

Maybe I’ll just start by explaining the topic of our committee, which is briefly the context of nuclear weapons in international politics.

 

We started the day with the official opening of the AntwerpMUN 2017 with speeches given by the president of the AntwerpMUN organization and the vice dean of the university of Antwerp. Once all of that had passed we started with the actual committee session.

 

I must say, during the first half, the committee was quite sleepy or quiet. There weren’t too many motions or points being passed by to the chair. Nevertheless it was still a very intense and fruitful day, with a lot of notes being passed around. When I received the email stating that I had been selected in representing the United States of America at the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), I imagined I’d be receiving plenty of notes, but I did not expect it to be that many! Most of the time I was just sitting there and replying to all of the notes I have received from almost every delegate in the room.

 

The plan of the United States together with Russia and all of the other nuclear powers, is to come to an agreement on the possible further non-proliferation and gradually strive to a mutual partial disarmament between all of the nuclear powers. I must say, we are taking the first steps towards actually achieving that, but the MUN has just started and we still have a long way ahead when it comes to working out in detail the conditions of that agreement.

 

As I’m writing this summary I’m nearly falling asleep from fatigue after all of the work we have done today. But I do so, with a smile as big as our (USA) president’s ego, which says a lot of how big it is.

 

So far day one out of four has ended, looking forward to the rest of the MUN. Let me just finish with a quote by President Trump: “Let’s make AntwerpMUN great again!”

---

 

Jonas Van Orshoven   (Ambassador of Russia)

The first day in the General Assembly was characterized by a lot of testing the waters, and delegates trying to find allies for the different goals they have for this four-day session. This resulted in a somewhat chaotic and unstructured start. We held a lot of informal debates to enable delegates to discuss issues more freely with each other in little groups, but this also fragmented the debate, as some groups focused on other issues than others. The chairs are trying their best to guide the less vocal delegations into actively sharing their opinions, because a lot of debates aren’t as polarized as you would expect for a first day. Maybe some delegations will take tonight as an opportunity to do more research to support their arguments and statements.

 

As soon as an opportunity presented itself, I started working with the delegations of China and the United States to address the nuclear-sharing missions that place nuclear weapons in countries that don’t possess nuclear technology. This proved to be quite fruitful and we succeeded in finding some common ground on the topic, which the other delegations in the committee seemed, at least for now, to approve of.

 

The delegate of Australia, however, has proven to be particularly tough and, especially during informal discussions, seems to find it very undesirable to diminish the range of the US’s ‘nuclear umbrella’. I should be able to come up with a solid strategy to either keep them happy or focus on other things during the informal discussions.

 

From what the first day of discussions has taught me, a lot of the non-nuclear States will try to impose inspection obligations on the nuclear States and in particular Russia and the USA. As a matter of fact, Russia and the USA already carry out inspections on each other’s territories so there is no need for an extension of the inspection regime under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

My arguments to that effect, seemed to fall on deaf ears and it looks like some of the non-nuclear States will try to form a bloc against the nuclear States. I hope these delegations don’t forget that Russia, as well as the US, has a veto in the Security Council so any resolution that doesn’t incorporate our concerns on the matter, will carry little weight in there.

 

So, a major point that I expect to be raised tomorrow is the fact that the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not provide inspections in nuclear-weapon States. Although I understand this can be a sore spot for those States, it is not in the best interest of the Russian Federation to give up this much of its national sovereignty on a crucial military issue. This is a point in which I stand united with the USA, which is one of the more vocal delegations in the committee. We should be able to hold the other delegations off for the next few days, but it might cost us a lot of goodwill for other topics in which we would like to achieve progress. But tonight we have a pub crawl planned, so that might be a good opportunity to gain some allies for the next few days!

---

 

Joyce Ibens   (President of Romania)

Today I woke up as the head of state of Romania – up and ready to discuss important matters with my fellow members of the European Council. On my way to our location where the committee sessions are to be held, I encountered a colleague: the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Together we chatted a bit and upon arrival we registered. After the opening ceremony, our debates could officially begin.

 

For the next four days we are to discuss on how to implement gender equality in the European Union, institutions and society. Moreover we will exchange views on some clear pervasive problems such as countering modern slavery and forced labour in the EU. Before lunch break we got comfortable with the subjects by all stating our own personal stances on the issues and by elaborating on future measures to be taken. We talked about very diverse subjects such as the effectiveness of quotas implemented to give preference to women on the work force, both institutional as in private companies. Consequently we examined on how we could improve the educational system in favour of horizontal gender equality.

 

Afterwards we enjoyed a delicious lunch at the Komida but we did not hold off on further discussions. On the contrary, gender equality lead to some heated conversations while eating. After our lunch we continued on other matters such as gender-based violence and human trafficking where women remain a vulnerable social group. The majority of the heads of states complied on working together as a strong force, as a community in order to erase illegal criminal activities that affect vulnerable social groups. Hungary took a stance by saying they wanted to close the borders and raise border controls, but there was no consensus in the council on this proposition.

 

We took a small break, where me and some other delegates enjoyed the opportunity to get some fresh air. Together with the heads of states of Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece and Austria, we acknowledged that we wanted some structure in our agenda for the next days. After our break, during the follow-up session we all agreed upon to reform our agenda in order to have a clear overview on what should be discussed today and the following days.

 

Later a heated discussion emerged between the Netherlands and myself forming a similar opinion and Belgium and Austria on the other side. I completely agreed with the Netherlands that there should be a revision of the paternity and maternity rights, where parents could decide themselves on how to plan their leave before and post birth. Eventually we worked out a resolution on the sensibilisation of gender roles by funding awareness campaigns. There was a clear consensus that this was necessary in order to change the mentality in gender equality.

 

At the end of our sessions, we all decided to table the subject to tomorrow morning in order to come to a distinctive resolution on the subject. But besides those serious matters, it was time to let our hair down. All fellow delegates of the European Council, General Assembly, The World Trade Organization and the United Nations Security Council will enjoy a pub-crawl tonight! Lets hope we will be energetic enough tomorrow to continue our committee sessions.

---

 

Pauline Theunis   (Presidente van Slovenië)

De openingsdag van MUN is net achter de rug. Na de openingsceremonie is iedereen meteen ingevlogen. Aangezien Slovenië reeds enorm heeft ingezet op gendergelijkheid, valt dat ook te merken aan de resultaten. Met een achtste plaats met betrekking tot de genderkloof hebben wij al veel verwezenlijkt. Vooral één ander land springt er meteen uit, Finland. Iedereen kan leren van wat zij de laatste jaren verwezenlijkt hebben. We hebben vandaag gedebatteerd over het nut van quota’s, over mensenhandel, over de gelijktrekking van vader- en moederschapsverlof enzovoort en ik hoopte op veel invloed van Finland, mits zij net het land bij uitstek zijn om hierover oplossingen aan te reiken, maar die bleef jammer genoeg uit.

 

We waren ook met z’n allen in het wilde weg beginnen debatteren zonder de besprekingen effectief in een (losse) structuur te gieten. Na de middag waren we daar ook allemaal mee akkoord waardoor we nu puntjes op de agenda hebben kunnen zetten voor morgen. Handig, aangezien iedereen zich dan kan inlezen. Hongarije heeft zich vandaag het meeste geprofileerd als het land waar tradities en traditionele rollen nog steeds prioriteit nemen boven gendergelijkheid. Dit omdat ze geen genderquota’s in hun land willen, maar dat gezegd zijnde, wel willen werken aan andere manieren om gendergelijkheid na te streven. Alternatieve voorstellen bleven echter jammer genoeg uit.

 

Hongarije heeft ook benoemd dat zij vaak de bron zijn van mensenhandel en ze zouden graag (financiële) hulp van andere landen willen om deze problematiek te bestrijden. In Slovenië is dit minder een probleem, maar aangezien mensenhandel zich uiteraard niet beperkt tot landsgrenzen, zijn wij zeker bereid om hier een handje toe te steken. Een ander punt over gendergelijkheid kwam vanuit Luxemburg. Zij sprongen mee op de kar toen wij, Slovenië, aan het woord waren en de problematiek van horizontale en verticale segregatie op de arbeidsmarkt aankaartten. Dit is voor ons nog steeds een groot probleem aangezien slechts 1/3 van de vrouwen in hooggeplaatste functies staan. Hongarije gaf de oplossing om meteen uit het onderwijssysteem zelf te werken en om vrouwen warm te maken voor de industriële sector gezien zij vaak voor de dienstensector kiezen.

 

Een andere invalshoek kwam van Litouwen. Zij spraken over het feit dat het heel vaak over vrouwen gaat, maar dat we daarmee slechts de helft van het probleem behandelden, want mannen kunnen ook aangespoord worden om meer in de dienstensector te werken en gemobiliseerd worden om vrouwen te helpen. Aangezien wij de ‘HeforShe’-solidariteitscampagne mee steunen, die mannen inderdaad aanspoort om vrouwen te ondersteunen, was dit voor ons een schot in de roos. België kwam daar ook met een goed idee aan, namelijk het bannen van stereotypen in het onderwijs. Dat een verpleger een man kan zijn en dat een bouwvakker ook een vrouw kan zijn. Kortom, food for thought.

De vorige twee albums van The xx bevonden zich op de dunne scheidingslijn tussen minimalistische indierock en eerder elegante emorock. Met het nieuwste album I See You werd vrij abrupt een andere weg ingeslagen. Een weg die ongetwijfeld geplaveid is door techno-wonderkind Jamie xx. De nieuwe plaat is een pak minder ingetogen, om niet te zeggen opgewekt. Dit oeuvre was voor mij The xx niet meer. Het was hele goede muziek, maar niet meer die duistere, contrasterende zang begeleid door subtiele beats met een ontzettend schril en hoog afgestemde gitaar die maximaal afstak tegen de prominente basgitaar. Toch groeide ik er stilaan in, muziek hoort nu eenmaal niet continu hetzelfde te zijn. Er bleef iets uniek aan The xx dat andere emotioneel beladen rockmuziek niet had. Tenzij misschien Daughter, dat ik eigenlijk niet wilde zien verdwijnen.

 

Ik was dus benieuwd naar de live performance van The xx. Ze zijn op dit moment met hun nieuwe soort muziek populairder dan ooit, voordien was het concept toch eerder underground te noemen. Die groei heeft Jamie xx op zijn geweten. Zijn steengoede solodebuut In Colour heeft hij merkbaar doorgetrokken in het derde album van The xx. Ook de zang is veranderd. Vroegere platen waren eerder poëtisch, niet per se technisch moeilijke zang met complexe noten, maar wel zwaar en sinister. Nu komt er veel meer techniek en trilling aan te pas, vooral bij de ontzettend fragiele stem van Romy Madley Croft. De discrepantie tussen haar stem en die van Oliver Sim is een succesformule, mede doordat hun gitaarwerk dezelfde frequentieverschillen geeft. The xx is als zwart en wit. Jamie xx is dan weer de regenboog die er sinds dit laatste album doorheen schijnt. Hun muziek is op dit moment exact zoals de cover van Dark Side Of The Moon van Pink Floyd.

 

 

De live opstelling van Jamie xx heeft wat weg van een ruimtestation en is achteraan en hoger op het podium gesitueerd. Ervoor ontstaat een lege ruimte met enkel Romy en Oliver en hun gitaren. Het heeft iets duaal; klassiek en gestript versus modern en overdadig. De combinatie van stijl levert een prachtige symbiose. Van een ingetogen begin met pure melancholie en weemoed, gedomineerd door de klassieke The xx, verplaatst de focus zich meer en meer naar Jamie’s deel van het podium. De beats worden dansbaar en de sfeer gemoedelijker, echter zonder dat het geheel aan kracht verliest. Tot Romy de golfbeweging resoluut naar het klassieke spectrum trekt met een uiterst fragiele versie van haar solonummer Performance. Kippenvelmoment.

 

The xx beschikt over het talent om live hetzelfde te klinken als op cd. Daarom besloten ze sommige nummers in een nieuw jasje te steken. Het naar mijn mening mooiste nummer van The xx, Fiction, werd van zijn klassieke essentie ontdaan en geconfigureerd tot een intro van formaat voor het volledig gerestylede Shelter, dat een dansplaat van jewelste werd. Nochtans een van de meer suïcidale schijven van weleer. Hierna werd eigenlijk niet meer teruggekeerd naar het klassieke van The xx en werd heel Vorst meegenomen op één groot feest langsheen het repertoire van The xx. Nooit gedacht dat ik met een bezwete rug van het dansen The xx zou verlaten. Sommige groepen vallen wat uiteen als er intern verschil optreedt, The xx niet. Dijk van een plaat, dijk van een groep, dijk van een concert. Binnenkort opnieuw te zien op Pukkelpop. Dwarsers, niet twijfelen.

Last time I did it, I was 8 years old. After that I learned women cannot ride a bicycle or motor bike in Iran. I didn't know why. And if I tried to ask, I would get answers like: “A woman's body is too attractive to ride a bicycle in public, before gazing eyes. It's a sin we must not commit.”

 

I pass street after street. It's dark and quiet and my old bicycle makes strange, ratling noises, but to me it's the cutest sound ever. The cold breeze plays with my hair and soothes my painful head.

 

It has only been two days since I got to Antwerp from Barcelona. My marvelous Barcelona with all her difficulties. Coping with my first Erasmus destination wasn't easy.

 

I had been preparing myself in Iran for these days in Europe. For all of my life I had been daydreaming about tearing up the restrictions and borders around me, but when I finally did, I was left desperate aside and life's wild waves were pounding me one by one.

 

Everything was like an unbearable burden for me: English, courses, routes, communicating, speaking. The city and the people were the best, but there was something wrong with me. I often found myself asking the same questions. Am I ill? Homesick? Depressed?

 

Sometimes when I walk in the beautiful streets and have a drink in the cute cafes, I unconsciously remember all my beloved friends and family who did everything in their power to make me scared of going to Europe, a girl all by herself. Everyone mocked me and my big goals. I remember how I was looked down on my entire life. All the hatred I have been keeping in my heart for all those years. An Afghan-Iranian girl who has always been told that being an Afghan is a shame, being a refugee's daughter a pity. How I could bring out nothing, could not hate and just hoped for a new day, for my day.

 

Now I am in a class with people of all colors, from black to white. Some of them are like me, mixed. We walk shoulder by shoulder and they wish good things for me and my country.

 

I remember again that I am a little girl from a small city in a developing country but I've come a long way.

 

Sometimes when I walk around, I am amazed by all the peace and beauty around me and while tears well up in my eyes, I wish we could have a life similar to this over there, or I could have my family with me here.

 

Once again I look at myself. I feel something is wrong with me.

 

Because of all the hatred that I beared from Iran to here, I feel so weak. I feel I'm not the girl I used to be. I feel so heavy carrying all that hate.

 

I'm riding my bicycle. It's still a long way back to my room. For a second, I close my eyes and I tell myself: it's nothing, I'm tired. I have to let go of all bitter memories. I dream about the future and remember that I promised myself to show the best of me. That I want to be successful in my studies and life. To do my best solving some of humanity's problems or at least my countrymen's problems.

 

Just like a little plant, my roots are tensed about all these temporary soils that I have to get used to. The gloomy sky here makes me feel down. Winter in Antwerp seems to be gloomy, but I know soon spring arrives. I know the blue sky will show up soon, so my weak roots can dare to grow again.

 

I have to stand on my own two feet and carry on strongly.

I had only been in beautiful Antwerp for two days when I got money for the first time from those indoor ATMs at Ossenmarkt, where I saw a concert poster announcing Dominik Eulberg. It is the one electronic musician and DJ I prefer to all the others and whom I have already seen three times back in Austria. Every time it was kick-ass. The music might not seem so special when you listen to his albums, but they are intertwined with Eulberg's elaboration on all kind of birds in between the tracks, as he is also an ornithologist. You can see this on his website.

 

It is, however, on the second, third and fourth re-run that you will start to discover all the intricacies and fineness in the albums, similar to acts such as Jon Hopkins or Pantha du Prince. It won’t come as a surprise that immediately I knew I had to go there, at all costs, be it alone or together with a friend. Luckily, the show was not in the far feature, but already on my third weekend in town, on the 24th of February to be exact, and that way I had found the ideal starting point to discover the electronic scene here in Antwerp. This blog will cover my experiences in and with the Antwerp nightlife at irregular intervals.

 

For me, being an Erasmus student from Vienna, it is obvious to compare everything here with my experiences from back home. Sometimes this makes sense, sometimes not at all – in any case I want to be here with open eyes and a free mind. As it is my second student exchange already (after Kraków back in 2016, which is also a superb party city), I am kind of saturated with the Erasmus parties, though they can be great fun and for sure are the easiest way to get to know your fellow exchangers. However, I am much more interested in local life and want to go where you Belgians go.

 

After numerous nights mainly spent in the bars around the Ossenmarkt and the first two weeks passing really quickly, February 24th came almost in the blink of an eye. After some hours of pre-drinking at a friend’s place, we arrived in the club at about 1 o’clock. Eulberg’s set was from 3 to 5, so there was still some time to check out the place and get our dancing shoes on. First surprise, for us not knowing our way around too well yet: the club is directly in the red-light district. Turns out that not only in Vienna some of the best clubs and bars are located in shady, lets-say, neighborhoods. Still surprising though, that the girls are behind glass facades. Back in Austria, prostitution is much more hidden, and initiating contact rarely happens out on the streets any more, even less so in window displays. I’m not quite sure what to make of it, whether it is better that it's more visible here, as it (sadly) is a substantial part of society. Awareness about the issue for sure is important, but on the other hand, there must also be kids and families living around there. So I have mixed feelings about this.

 

Second surprise: Cafe d’Anvers looks like a church, feels like a church and actually is located in a church, which was built in the 16th century and since 1989 works as Café d’Anvers. When entering, you have to make your way around the wardrobe, toilets and bar, before coming into the club’s heart, or, more accurately: the church’s nave. With its high ceiling, a mix of century-old brickwalls and industrial elements such as huge wind turbines and a well-sized, well-crowded dancefloor already at this time, this place was better than I even hoped for and different than all clubs I’ve been to.

 

Perfectly on time at 3am, Eulberg appeared on stage and after some subtle, fade out of Nicki Moreno (who delivered a decent, even if not spectacular minimal techno set at too-low volume), the actual holy mass started. Our priest didn’t waste any time, pushed the tempo and sound volume to new heights and started a kick-ass techno set. The club was decently filled at this time, but luckily there was still enough space to dance. People went crazy, the lights and turbine-ventilation began firing (wind sometimes too strong and chilly), and the DJ and the people were at the same wavelength from the very first beats and baselines, which rarely happens. In his set, Eulberg modestly, but sophistically mixed some of his own music into other tracks, in addition to well-placed changes of speed and rhythm. He got the club dancing within a blink of an eye. It was a pleasant surprise to see that this rather unknown DJ manages to fill a 800-people-club some 300km away from his homebase in Western Germany. I did know that almost everybody in the Netherlands is into techno, but I didn’t know that the music is that popular here as well.

 

I will certainly come back to this church, as it not only offers a massive sound system, but also a nice mix of people, neither them nor the place being too posh or too fucked-up (in general, I prefer grungy clubs, as they usually are the more exciting ones). One guy even helped me out at the toilet, when I didn’t have cash to pay and a bouncer was already approaching me to make me pay or leave (in a friendly way though). I will certainly bring some coins next time, as well as fresh energy, as this sublime techno-cathedral might manage to make me believe again.

Pang Pang

 

Regisseur: Flore Pensaert
Duur: 8.11 minuten

 

Pang Pang is de perfecte opener voor dit festival. De manier waarop de titel verschijnt en het spel met licht en donker zetten de toon voor de rest van de avond. Deze film gaat over een vrouw die terugkijkt op haar leven en denkt: "wat als?" Regisseur Flore studeert film aan het RITCS en dat merk je. Door de mooie framing, kleurkeuze en geluid vergeten we bijna dat het script soms wat stroef in de oren klinkt.

 

 

 

Trailer De Golf

Regisseur: Robin De Stickere
Duur: 2.36 minuten

 

Deze kortfilm is – zoals de titel al verraadt – een trailer. Voor welke film? Die Welle. Hoewel de edit best goed zit en de typische spanning van een trailer aanwezig is, weten de andere aspecten van deze inzending elkaar niet aan te vullen.

 

 

Zvuk

Regisseur: Ben Verrept
Duur: 6.57 minuten

 

Wauw, hier word je stil van. Zo simpel en toch zo mooi. Dit verhaal wordt vanaf het eerste beeld al duidelijk, zonder dat enige uitleg nodig is. Een dove man zoekt naar geluid, naar muziek in zijn muisstille wereld. De mooie locaties, shots, het prachtige camera- en acteerwerk (Vic De Wachter) vullen elkaar buitengewoon goed aan. Naast narratief dus cinematografisch ook erg sterk.

 

 

(P)remise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regisseur: Mathilde Luijten
Duur: 20.06 minuten

 

Deze film begint met vijf personages en de vraag is: wie is wie? Vanaf het moment dat je “Hé, pa!” hoort, merk je dat het uiterlijk van deze studentes niets zegt over hun rol en ben je op zoek naar de identiteit van alle personages. Een goed concept met mooie shots (vooral de bed- en badscènes zijn een favoriet), maar toch een tikkeltje te verwarrend. Een hele creatieve manier om met een groep vrienden van dezelfde leeftijd toch een complexer verhaal te kunnen brengen.

 

 

Kindness to strangers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regisseur: Quinten Van Loon
Duur: 9.46 minuten

 

Cola is gevaarlijker dan je denkt. De opzet van deze film volgt het klassieke patroon van een thriller. Een jongen is alleen thuis, er staat een vreemde man voor de deur en wat er dan gebeurt ... is helaas redelijk voorspelbaar. Wel tonen de flashbacks en verschillende shots dat deze jonge filmmaker houdt van film. We zijn benieuwd naar wat de toekomst brengt.

 

 

Mon dou dou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regisseur: Nina Broeckx
Duur: 7.39 minuten

 

Zo anders dan Zvuk (dat ook vijf sterren van ons kreeg), maar zo goed bedacht. Dit is alles wat een studentenkortfilm moet zijn. Nina geeft hier het perfecte voorbeeld van hoe je met minder materiaal ook toffe dingen kan maken. De film eindigt met een plottwist die getuigt van een geweldig gevoel voor humor. Wat begint met een date, draait uit op iets heel anders. Blaffie is the stuff of nightmares!

 

 

Dixit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regisseur: Lori Tuerlinckx
Duur: 12.30 minuten

 

De matras des levens, de spaghettisliert des levens, er wordt veel gedacht in deze film. Hij komt langzaam op gang en speelt zich eerst in complete stilte af. Tot het hoofdpersonage op een kantelpunt komt en plots nadenkt over haar leven. Wij waren niet helemaal mee, maar zijn wel fan van de locaties en de schaamteloze spaghettiscène.

 

 

Utopia

 

Regisseur: Alec Lamberts
Duur: 4.59 minuten

 

Een combinatie van film en poëzie, met als favoriete quote "herstellen is in sommige gevallen onbegonnen werk". Het hoofdpersonage wandelt door de natuur, mijmerend over liefde en achtervolgd door haar. Een prima debuut met mooie beelden, maar helaas sloeg deze film toch net de plank mis.

 

 

 

 

Niet te veel patatjes

 

Regisseur: Laura Morreel
Duur: 22.46 minuten

 

Deze film vertelt een verhaal over anorexia vanuit het oogpunt van een familielid. Wat doet deze ziekte met mensen die niet haar slachtoffer zijn? Een combinatie van mooie shots, goede acteerprestaties en een gevoelig onderwerp maken deze kortfilm tot wat hij is. Vooral het acteerwerk van het piepjonge hoofdpersonage (Gloria Piedfort) is indrukwekkend. Helaas duren sommige scènes wat te lang (en andere juist te kort) en valt daardoor de suspense weg. Met een strakkere edit en vloeiendere plotlijn zou deze film haar weg naar ons hart hebben gevonden.

 

 

Tip van de redactie

Mon dou dou! We vonden deze film verrassend en vinden dat hij staat voor alles wat dit festival is.

 

Maar oordeel gerust zelf, bewandel de rode loper op 1 maart en waan je even Ryan Gosling of Emma Stone.