HPRgument Blog — February 27, 2010 10:00 pm

Harvard Model UN: Self-congratulations or a glimpse at how the world could be run?

By Eli Martin

Last weekend, Harvard’s Model United Nations conference for college students took place for the 56th time, drawing thousands of students from all over the world to Boston Park Plaza. As an uber-important (or not) Assistant Director to the E.U. committee, I got to observe first hand how students acted as delegates from countries they didn’t come from and to debate the possibility of a unified European army. Needless to say, they fleshed out a brilliant resolution to transform the future of the European Union, one that reflected a great deal of compromise from all quarters. And at the end of the slightly-gruelling and sleepless process, everyone is congratulated, and then congratulated again. The non-stop schedule, coupled with an array of talent and vibrant backgrounds shooting from all corners of an overstuffed semi-luxury hotel creates a genuinely-electric atmosphere. When it’s all over, you can’t help but feel like you were part of something special, something that, once again, has to be tragically put off until the same time next year. Then you go back into the real world, work off the emotional hangover, and suddenly find it very easy to dismiss the relevance of the whole thing.

Model UN essentially creates an illusion. It acts as a key conspirator in perpetuating teenage idealism well into the late college years. There is one obvious reason for this. As none of the delegates truly represent the countries they are fighting for in the weekend’s various committees and assemblies, it is always possible to be reasonable, deliberate, and forward-looking. You can justify to yourself the loss of one thing for the gain of something much greater. In reality, representatives from nations like the U.K. and Czech Republic would probably leave bits of themselves strewn across the Brussels assembly before consenting to an E.U. army. At Model UN, provided we first establish a focus group to study the impact of national sovereignty, coupled with exemptions for neutral nations, it’s all kosher. And even if someone does give in to something really disastrous for them, it doesn’t matter because, well, it doesn’t matter. Unlike in the real United Nations, the greatest threat to stability comes from the delegation that may or may not have pre-written a draft resolution (a cardinal sin in the realm of Model UN), as opposed to something along the lines of Iran blowing up the world or climate change killing us all. In the end, it all comes to little more than a great big thank you and a teary kiss. Oh, and the assurance that every delegate will be one those fabled ‘world leaders of tomorrow’.

However, it’s this swell of good-feeling and optimism which may just, ultimately, make these conferences so unavoidably worthwhile. By the end of the weekend, participants have not only debated with each other at great length, but they’ve also had a good time. From the elegant, refined cocktail evening to the noticeably less-refined delegate dance, it’s hard not to adopt an essentially happy, optimistic view of things. For sure, people are able to stumble in to committee at 9 AM the next morning partly because they know they really don’t have to save the world. China is far more likely to give you a hug than take down Google when you’re not looking. As a raving wannabe-intellectual, I can only imagine that it’s got more in common with, say, the Congress of Vienna in 1815, than with any contemporary summit. Nowhere else today could you so easily replicate the atmosphere of overwhelming relief which followed the end of the Napoleonic Wars– just remember to swap the mistress-sharing between Castlereagh, Metternich et al with a few innocent kisses in the Park Plaza ballroom. And in doing this, Model UN clearly builds bridges which the world will need this century. Moreover, because delegates aren’t filled with a devouring sense of seriousness and patriotic allegiance to one’s country above all else, committees can actually come up with pretty good stuff, as they reach that all-important compromise. In short, Model UN is useful because it’s so unlike the real thing.

Maybe, if you replicated this set-up when the world really comes together at crucial moments– e.g. if you replaced Susan Rice (U.S. ambassador to the U.N.) with an accountant from Shanghai and vice-versa, as well as introducing a mandatory drinks’ hour– you’d end up with a better outcome and a better world. It’s easy to knock something as self-congratulatory as Model UN. The trouble is, it’s not obvious why the delegates who go to these things (led of course by an inspired team of Harvard students) would be any worse at solving today’s problems than our real world leaders.

Related posts:

Obama Mad Libs
Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Google Sells Out
Breaking Down The Super Committee
Tags:
Author:
  • Felix de Rosen

    Here is my problem with MUN. It inspires false hope. Delegates seem to leave MUN with the feeling that anything can be accomplished with a little goodwill and some debating. I’m not arguing against MUN as a program, but I do think that MUN organizes should not congratulate every word spoken and action done. Of course, it is impossible to have a perfectly”model” UN, but nevertheless, chairs and organizers should point out more clearly the differences between model and reality. Unfortunately, this may sadden the poor delegates representing Tonga and Malawi.

  • http://marcusmedler.com marcus medler

    Excellent critique! But. This essay makes many valid points but only when held against nonacademic situations. I understand the event as an exciting and high level learning exercise. Today when virtual games are sold as learning, when the military finds computer gaming a valid exercising of skills for their future killers, this venue teaches geography, cultural awareness, political/analysis, public speaking, debate and group interaction. When Model UN is placed next to other learning activities I understand the wild and dedicated enthusiasm. I think one should see model UN as a non boring, non virtual exercise in advanced pedagogy.

  • Anonymous

    Here is a brilliant essay about authoritarianism as it relates to almost the same sort of social events.  I might add that I have proudly won an award from the Harvard Model UN as a “Best Delegate,” some 33 years ago. 

    http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

  • Anonymous

    Ridiculous.  As a debater who had a wall full of awards from Model UN’s, including this one, I can assure you that “idealism” played a very small role, if any, in this social event. In fact, if anything, the entire event was an exercise in cynicism and getting laid.  In some sense, the Harvard UN had an “animal house” feel to it in the late 70′s early 80′s.  Many aspects accentuated class, both in the delegates and their powers, who got to be these delegates, who got to be “honorary” delegates, etc.  Let me explain:

    First, there’s about 50 or 60 “sessions” meeting at any one time, each with 30-40 people or more.  At each one, the US, the USSR (Now something else, I don’t know), and China, had folks sitting at EVERY meeting all day.  These delegations came from rich high schools like Birch Wathen and famous private high schools that were sometimes “sort of ethnic” towards Irish, like, everyone at that school happened to be Irish.  To get an idea of how classist this made this particular event, you had to see the whole picture: these schools are private schools, where every kid is talented and educated.  So, they had sixty person delegations.  Meanwhile, most high schools sent MAYBE 6 kids.  And your delegation was “Bangladesh,” (I won with this) or “Togo.” ONLY large delegation schools got good countries, and then only if they were super achievers as teams.

    And what do I mean by “good countries?”  I mean that the US had an edge on winning a debate in these “committees,” (which were loosely based on UN committees, like ECO/SOC (Economic and Social) and Security Council (Again, only a few high schools were admitted to delegations that had Security Council seats). Why?  Because a LOT of the resolutions were somehow connected to either asking the UN, and by that, the US, to do something (something that as part of the “game” was acknowledged: the US delegate had to sign off or the allied block generally did what they said and would not support whatever resolution that was up) or directly CONDEMNING the US for something or other, as a “non-aligned” nation.  In any case, the US delegate got to stand up a lot more than other delegates to RESPOND to these either needs or charges, and was needed to communicate, to his “team” on other committees to pass resolutions in the “Plenary” session.  If you could get the US/Chinese or the US/Russia guys on your side, your chances dramatically increased to win the best delegate award, because they allowed you to speak by YIELDING TIME TO YOU.   So, so far, at the Harvard UN, making friends with richy rich debaters from Private high schools is the surest path for a slum boy from a low end high school to make it to the awards ceremony with a few passed resolutions in a forty person room. 

    Next, the selection of winners: it’s an election.  So, not only is it based on your ability to shmooze with the power “time dispensers,” just like in congress or the UN, so you can be heard, but then you must convince others to not only vote for your stuff (the resolutions), but then, get offered your name as one of four or five possible winners that they vote on.  And how do you do that?  Well…the way I did it was to find a “chump.” Someone who would boil over with rage if I could poke them the right way in debate.  I just let them go crazy at my words.  This amused the rabble.  At the end, they loved the experience of watching me turn chumps purple.  I really did what Gingrich did the other night: I found some stooge, like the mediator that night, and then, after establishing he was an idiot to this large crowd, I would not yell at him, but pity him in public.  “poor, poor Mauritania, he just can’t handle the pressure.”  Someone actually fuming, and then, not being referred to as “Ed,” but as “Mauritania,” is pretty freaking amusing to the schadenfreude crowd. 

    So, you see, the entire affair is a study in cynicism, not hope.  And mob experience, not “idealistic and efficient” government.  And those that participate, being the smartest of their high schools, get that.  And we came there to party as much as to “debate,” and we got drunk off our butts (my delegation was 36 strong one year and acted as retarded as 15 year olds in a 36 strong gang at the Hilton would act), took No Doz to stay awake so we could make out with the cute girls,

  • Anonymous

    agreed. Don’t get me wrong from my other comments: the Model UN is a great learning tool.  To be part of the debating club, to study history, to pretend to be another nation (especially one that disagrees with US policies) is fun and educational.  And I don’t think that those that pursue such hobbies are likely to be easily bamboozled into rose colored glasses world.

custom writing