The start of an Model United Nations (MUN)debate on whichever committee is all about making statements. We believe this, we believe that etc. Never “I” since you are speaking as a country so it a typical sentence uttered may go on the lines of “We the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea laugh at the term human rights.” The overall point at this stage is to firmly outline your position and as necessary justify it. You may have written a position paper and so may have others. Sometimes speakers recap what was written on their paper allowing delegates to nod knowingly, hiding the fact that they didn’t bother reading any of it. For the listeners it is all about looking for key words and key points of future possible cooperation or even friction. Three groups of people are distinctly outlined for the delegate; allies, adversaries and the undecided.
These three groups are always flavoured by the unique personality of the delegates themselves. Usually the personality clash with the country’s policies becomes less announced as delegates get more experienced, or at times simply take the time out to research their country. Some of my most bitter clashes with people in debates is when I perceive them as taking their own policy line as opposed to following those of their country. In MUN there will always be personal differences of some kind with a country, sometimes extreme ones. Sometimes people deliberately pick countries that are the polar opposite of their personal views. More than once I an extreme social liberal and environmentally conscious person has been the gay killing oil swilling Saudi Arabia. Why do I do this? Sometimes to have fun but also to set a personal challenge to myself that I can present illogical and at times morally abhorrent views as though I actually believe in them. I
often feel pretty dirty after the session when I voice these views, but the golden rule with MUN is that that when it comes to feuds in the chamber, what happens in the chamber stays in the chamber. By my own admission I have not always been able to follow my own rule. But usually this has been when someone being arrogant in the chamber has been proven to me as being arrogant in person real life, a big red line for me. Apart from the arrogant among us I definitely respect those who live and breathe their country. If you act the part through and through you deserve credit.
As true as it is in many circumstances in life knowledge is power in MUN. Often this means reading through dry General Assembly or Security Council Resolutions. Sometimes it means learning random dates, names, agreements, treaties and policies etc. It can be a job to remember them all. Since I usually turn up at a MUN debate without a laptop I tend to be old school and bring these written down in a folder. My little intelligence dossier can be useful to correct allies as well as friends. During a historical MUN Security Council debate about the 1994 Rwandan genocide (then meant to happen within days) the delegate for the UK went on a rant about how terrible the Rwandan Patriotic Front apparently was. In the unmoderated caucas (free discussion) I showed him the notes from my dossier that showed that not only did the UK support the RPF, they have them weapons and training to annoy the French in their African backyard. The sheepish and clearly very
hungover UK delegate apologised for his earlier statements. Against ones enemies proper research can enable incoming broadside attacks into devastating counter attacks. If you speak with authority on a point you can imbalance your opponents and leave them very unwilling to challenge you. At times such measures can make them respect you if not fear you, sometimes both.
My favourite part of debating is what I call ‘the takedown’. Takedowns are simply times when you reply to a delegate with an opposing view in a definitive way that either wins an argument or blunts it. Takedowns are a potent cocktail of defiance, solid facts, humour, humiliation, bluster and perfect timing. They don’t always land like they should, but scoring a direct hit is exhilarating and tremendously confidence boosting during a tough debate. Most of my takedowns use an element of what my opponent has just said, indeed at times I directly quote them. Supportive knocks on the table from your allies can let you know mid flow that you are on to a winner. When it lands you can normally rely on the look of your opponent’s face to tell if your blows have landed as tough as intended. Tougher opponents may need to made more of an example of. The best takedowns are parliamentary ways of saying “sit down, shut up” and have that intended
effect.
A good few hours into an MUN debate you enter what I call “the fray”. Basically this is like a big and messy verbal skirmish where everyone tries to assert their position. People get angry. People laugh. Emotions are everywhere and everyone gets steadily more tired, leaving the shrewd and sneaky to manoeuvre. Time seems to have no meaning during the fray because so much energy goes into the vortex of the struggle. In a sense time doesn’t matter so much as the direction of the debate and the way the weight of it is going to one side or the other. You have to keep your ear to the ground otherwise our rivals may try and pull a fast one and either unleash some unexpected resolutions or amendments to your own. Sometimes even the Chairs of the debate get lost in the fray. I once told a Chair off three times during an MUN debate ; one for drinking (without sharing), one for not doing their research sufficiently and another for basically not
Chairing their debate well enough. Interestingly enough they still gave me an award, perhaps to shut me up. But either way this is the point where instinct takes over.
Lobbying and bloc forming is key especially in larger committees. On the Environment Committee I quickly strived to form a “Petroleum Posse” and pro nuclear bloc for two consecutive debates. This is where research comes in handy as does personal lobbying. Personal lobbying is a skill I am striving to master. It is all about persuading your target that you are on your side. “This is in your interests”, “there is nothing here that you disagree with” and “we are in sync on this” are quotes you often tend to come out with in the lobbying process. If this fails then what follows is the harder sell of letting them know in no uncertain terms the risks of opposing you. If threats are mishandled they can often call your bluff. I sent a particularly strong and threatening private note to Thailand as the US which they proceeded to read out aloud to the council. To cover up my blunder to confuse the council I stated that Thailand was
misquoting me: the actual note was far less polite. I am obviously not very good at threatening and feel pretty uncomfortable doing it, in that instance I gambled on it because persuasion wasn’t working. Still persuasion still seems to be more of my forte. Persuasion in public can impress the persuaded and those around them, certainly more than those witnessing blunt threats. Building a durable coalition can be very rewarding. I have met many friends this way, celebrating with them during victories and commiserating the defeats.
If you get anything voted through or not there is always one MUN tradition that I have come to greatly appreciate. At the end of a debate the delegates place around their cardboard placards with their country’s name on for their fellow delegates to sign and put messages on. These messages vary. Sometimes they come in the shape of thanks, compliments or death threats (just kidding about the latter). Once we are done pounding each other like paper boxers we put good thought into our messages to our fellow delegates. I have kept all of my placards and they all contain warm memories. One message complimented me and invited me to an MUN conference in Israel. Another message said I was such a good speaker I should be the next Prime Minister! Another one with a female name said they were “worshipping” me at the debate, temporarily unleashing the jealousy hounds from my fiancé.
But one of my favourite messages thanked me for being a faithful ally and said they hoped to see me at another conference soon. The feeling was and still is mutual. When the slagging, scheming and shouting is over that is what MUN is all about: meeting some extraordinary, interesting and funny people and hoping to meet them again sometime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment