The way of Model United Nations

We were coming towards the end of a very long debate. We had been arguing, compromising, bullying and pleading for the previous day and the start of this morning. Finally it seemed as though we were actually getting a resolution passed. Tired smiles started to appear on the faces of delegates. Then there was stunned silence followed by a mixture of panic and anger, absolute bedlam. For this was the Model United Nations Security Council. Russia had just decided to move their status from being a sponsor of the resolution to being a signatory. Since sponsors cannot veto the resolution and signatories who have the power can at will, the drama in the room went up several notches. Private messages flowed to Russia, "why are you doing this?" "What does Russia want?" When the delegate saw the last one a small smile appeared across their face. I was the Russian delegate.

This is the weird and wonderful world of Model United Nations, a simulation of the real UN. Sometimes they are small events at the local club where the number of participants can vary between 5-15. The debates around issues are numerous and various including but not exclusively; Climate Change, drugs, HIV/AIDS, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea's nuclear programme, terrorism, China's sea territorial claims, trade barriers and social care among others.

Each session of MUN is different whether you are at a regular local club night or at an international conference. The issues change, therefore the Nation States central to the debates change. When you have your country the first thing you need to know is that you are there to speak your country's position on a given issue, not your own. This can be especially challenging when you are given a country that you are not very familiar with, and even more so if you have to represent a country whose position you find distasteful. However there is much fun to be had with the latter. There are the jokers in the pack, the Axis of Evil countries; Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Iran. With these countries you can pretty much get away with saying anything random and crazy, interspersed with rants against America or the Jews or both (depending on the country). But others are less outwardly unsavoury but still don’t see eye to eye with the Western countries; Russia and China. China especially tends to play its cards close to its chest.

While my game plan for a given debate often depends on the issue we are addressing, it also depends on which country I am and which others are present. Who are my friends? Who are my enemies? Who are the neutral ones who can be persuaded? Who are the ones who might try to annoyingly outfox you with a critique of one of your speeches, leaving you to resort to cutting them down to size until they submit? Forceful positions on certain issues often require a forceful approach in order to match your country's stance. Often you find yourself having to articulate points of view that you disagree with or find downright offensive.

You learn a lot about human psychology at MUN. If you are at a local group you can learn the different debating methods that various people bring to the table and how to manoeuvre around them. On the international debate the very confident (and arrogant) people stick out. These are the resolution writers and those that seem to be everywhere at once during the informal sessions. They are often the showmen who are expert at appearing reasonable when really they would shiv you in the spinal column if it was in their national interest. Things get very competitive very quickly. Too often the people who spend most of their times behind the laptops writing resolutions get awards, mercifully a trend that seems to be abating.

At the international conferences the size and power of the country's you represent generally increases with the number of conferences you get under your belt. I worked up from Togo, to Egypt, to Russia (Security Council) to Saudi Arabia (Environment Programme). The last two countries left we with that dilemma I mentioned before, representing a country whose position is very far from your own. So I pondered over the dilemma and came to the conclusion that the only way to represent them effectively, would be to do so with enthusiasm and a fair share of aggression. Take no prisoners, trample your enemies, pillage and burn down their villages and dance and urinate on their funeral pyres. And in the breaks of the debate get to know your opponents as yourself, just so they know you don’t live your life as some kind of Genghis Khan-like jerk (or just a straight jerk). You have to let people know it isn’t personal and you have to believe it too.

But then comes the central contradiction, if you are getting all heated up arguing a point then successes and failures feel more personal. As Russia on the Security Council I ended up in shouting matches with Morocco and Australia, leading to France and the US virtually dragging me outside to cool me down and have me state my terms for getting us out of the deadlock. Just the other day I tried to use my powers of persuasion to get poor countries to vote through an amendment which would compensate Saudi Arabia financially for cutting it's oil production. I was asking countries like Tuvalu, an island nation with a 3 story building as its highest building and a 15 member parliament, to get the international community to give money to my super rich kingdom ruled by a super rich royal family. But alas my powers of oratory were not enough and my amendment was voted down. I was furious! I smacked my pen on desk so hard it broke. It was then that I decided to have my revenge. I and my oil producing allies (most of them) helped me vote down every single amendment and the resolution itself. Nothing was passed to tackle the problem of rising sea levels. The debate closed. I was happy as Saudi Arabia, personally I felt very dirty.

I go to MUN conferences for the social and the debating element. Every conference I have been to I have felt more welcome there than many other clubs I went to during my time at UWE. But sadly it will all come to an end at some point. I still go now because I only live a short walk away from the university and my friends in the committee still welcome me along. But sooner or later I will leave the weird and wonderful city of Bristol and it's MUN club. It is a shame since I have improved immeasurably in my performance at MUN debates. My speaking has improved thanks to practice at MUN and the practice I get from the Public Speaking Society I still attend. At the end of international conferences it is a tradition that you pass your country's placard around for people to sign and put comments on. I was especially touched with the comments I received at the last conference. It seemed many of my fellow delegates were impressed with my performance, one of them even saying that they thought I should be the next Prime Minister! The latter was quite a compliment even though pretty much anyone I could hit a rock with could do a better job than the incumbent. I was pleased that my colleagues thought so highly of me, but to be honest I was disappointed that after all that I walked away empty handed awards wise. I say this knowing that some chairs at that debate may be reading this. I am not expecting them to pull an award out of their backside and it isn’t personal, but I reserve my right to say when I think they are wrong.  Now I have done so I can let the matter rest.  If you get to know me personally you will find that I am principally outspoken when I see something I believe to be unjust.

But either way my past experience has left me hungry for the next MUN adventure.  I shall not be denied a second time.  So watch out BATHMUN 2014, the Bristol barbarians are coming!