Using comments as tool to promote your idea

How does a short speech differ from a short comment? When is the best moment to use which?

Short comment is more frequently used to state the position of a delegation without expanded explanation, while short speech gives speaker a chance to get into details – express the position and support it with argumentation. Words like “because”, “according to”, “I think”, “due to the reason” etc identify a short speech and are not used in a short comment.
NB: both short comment and short speech should be SHORT, don’t overuse this procedure.

Example:

Short comment: Iran highly appreciates the aspiration of Syria to elaborate on the issue of free air zones in the Middle East and welcomes other GA members to join the discussion during the caucus.

Short speech: China agrees that the issue of free air zones in the Middle East should be discussed and further developed during the session, but we would like to remind the delegates that our agenda is “The threat of the weapons of mass destruction”. Hence we encourage the body to remain focused on the current issue.

Shall I try to use short comments every time I approve or disapprove of a speech or opinion expressed in a speech?

Depends. Your demeanor during the official debate is defined by several factors – general position of your country (dominance and power vs. insignificance, cf. – USA and Trinidad & Tobago behavior), your cooperation strategy and environment on the floor. Saying that you agree with the proposal of the Chilean delegate to eliminate poverty (for instance) would be a waste of time. By constant remarks on a current problem you can create an image of ‘a pain in the a..’ Irrelevant short comments might alter the first impression (if provided) of your intelligence. Expedience and sense of proportion, “a sting of a wasp” as Indians would call it.

How do I define when to use a short speech?

Don’t forget the process of debate is pluri-lateral. Your short speech should be not dialog-oriented but refer to the entire audience. If your short speech doesn’t add any valuable information or ideas to the topic resolution, you can choose a more personal way of communication – notes or caucus. Two possible extremes in using P-23’s are 1) a “P-23 machine”, 2) a “thinking man”. In this case integration of one into the other can be an effective strategy of on-floor behavior. 

I represent Spain. If Angola raised a motion prior and expressed the same idea that I wanted to highlight. What shall I do when the chair asks whether I still have a motion?

Watch the environment of debate intently. Now you have two options – withdraw your motion or use a chance to stand out. First option can be used when there is no exigency and debate is approaching to caucus (for example, you see that delegates are waiting impatiently for a break). Second one is more beneficial for your representation though. General Assembly … 191 members … you are given a chance to speak after a 3-4 hour block … and are you going to withdraw? No way! It would be reasonless to repeat Angola’s idea but agree with Angola (that will add to consensus building) and contribute to it (further develop it if you have anything valuable to add), call for action and cooperation. Don’t be afraid to reiterate, be afraid to bullshit spontaneously.

Is there a quota for a powerful country like China or GB and for a poor developing country like Ghana in the quantity of short speeches and comments?

There is no quota but there is advice. General strategy is keeping a balance. If you represent a country like USA, abundant comments and questions may intensify the image of a hegemonic power. Unexpressed opinion of Ghana may contribute to its image of a small and insignificant country. By copious comments, speeches and questions you may at least make your country more distinguished but keep in mind the ratio of “quality over quantity”.