-
The Hague International
Model United Nations
-
-
-
|
- Countries represented by the previous
St. Stephen's School MUN delegations:
-
-
- 2001:
St. Kitts and Nevis;
-
- 2002:
Argentina;
-
- 2003:
Guinea Bissau;
-
- 2004: Chile;
-
- 2005: Estonia;
-
- 2006: Slovenia;
-
- 2007: Morocco;
-
- 2008:
|
-
-
-
HISTORY OF THE UNITED
NATIONS ORGANIZATION
-
-
RESOURCES & LINKS
-
-
MODEL UNITED NATIONS FORUM
-
-
- MUN impressions - by Remi Drouin
-
- So, THIMUN, supposedly the pinnacle conference.
The one and only, where schools from all over the world come together
and simulate the UN. The conference where, by definition, according
to the Secretary General, "these young delegates all come from
different backgrounds". But let's break this myth - MUN unites
middle class delegates from all over the western world to patronisingly
discuss the atrocities of Darfur, of child soldiers, of mass starvation
and mutilation by land mines, and label them rather appropriately:
tragedies, massacres, catastrophes. Destroyed the legend of MUN
didn't it? Good, let us now examine this week in more detail
Representing Morocco, St Stepheners budding with enthusiasm at finally
being allowed to make a hypothetical difference, advanced proudly
into the lobby on the first day, their heads filled with idealism,
their resolutions filled with ideas. After a rousing speech whereby
the Secretary General courteously invited the queen of the Netherlands
to open the ceremony, came the painful show of strength, of wit,
of tact, of diplomacy, (for want of a better word, but more importantly,
for self esteem's sake): the merging, where delegates exchanged
ideas and secretly tried to include as much of their own resolutions
in the final resolution, or "reso" in MUN- speak, as possible,
partly for the benefit of their country, partly for their own ego….
But enough sarcasm, enough cynicism - after all, all those against
the idea of a Model UN should not bother to go, right?
So, in this new light, how to describe the MUN? - for one, it gives
hope: not hope that the resolutions pass, in fact maybe it is better
if they don't (!), but hope that we, the generation of tomorrow,
care enough, or at least seem to care enough, about this world to
voluntarily participate in these simulations. MUN is not just another
activity that one does in order to embellish university applications
or personal statements, at least it should not be. If one is ready
to believe in this simulation, if one is ready to set aside the
badly worded resolutions, the aura of pomposity that emanates from
groups of teenagers in suits and one's own prejudices, then MUN
becomes a week long utopia, to discuss (granted with a very westernised
slant, since most of the schools came from the western world, and
the students involved most certainly did not come from the "different
backgrounds" so prized by the secretary general) problems that
face the world of today. And even if the final resolutions only
propose actions already taken, aid already given and promote the
status quo of the situation, surely those ideals, those ideas that
filled the minds originally, are not hampered. In fact, this idealism,
a cliché of youth, is only strengthened by the experience
of witnessing such cold, bland resolutions pass. Those defending
their works would argue that idealism has no place in reality, that
compromises have to be made. To this I retort: wasn't the UN constructed
on a dream to resolve world crises, both military and civilian?
- if the delegates of tomorrow already lack the idealism, then surely
the UN must be doomed?
Thus, whilst I urge all students to take part in MUN, and take the
positions of their designated countries and the issues discussed
very seriously, I beseech them not to take themselves seriously
and remember the idealism present within us all - critics have always
reproached to idealists their lack of vision, of reason. But without
idealism, without the ability to severely criticise a system, no
change can occur. Thus, to you, MUNers to-be, go to a conference
not with the hope of making a difference, but with the hope of strengthening
your own convictions, your confidence and your own opinions. For
that, THIMUN will be extraordinary.
- (Ironically, the writer's resolution did pass
with a vast majority of votes!)
-
-
-
-
-
Bilateral Diplomacy
|
-
-
Human Rights
|
-
-
Human Rights
|
-
-
Human Rights
|
-
-
Environment
|
-
...
...
...
 The girl
from Cairo American College was called Dina. She was representing
Israel, even though she was herself Turkish/Egyptian. She had
just presented her resolution to the General Assembly on the
Lebanon War. Her stance had been for a cessation of hostilities,
with the full disarmament of the Hezbollah military arm. Although
her resolution had had several amendments, it was pretty much
intact. Then, the final blow came. As the general assembly was
voting, the number of people against the resolution suddenly
became more apparent-dozens and dozens of little placards with
the words Iran, Syria, Jordan came into view, and before Dina
had a chance to count them properly, her resolution had failed.
Procedure dictating her actions, Dina, as the mastermind of
the resolution, was invited by the president of the Chair to
speak on the failed resolution. Her fervor and obvious disappointment
was striking. In her speech, Dina perfectly encapsulated MUN's
groups of open individuals deliberately simulating countries
foreign and unknown (to them), in an attempt to better understand
other points of view; and whilst her failure also characterised
many of the UN's decisions(!)-with different countries, most
notably the 5 permanent members, jealously guarding their interests-her
emotional involvement signaled her triumph. MUN is not about
passing idealistic resolutions that sometimes do not even make
grammatical sense, but about caring for the world, its people
and their future. We did not present solutions to the topics
of poverty, Security Council reform, or North Korea, but instead
presented reassurance: reassurance that we cared and were willing
to transcend ethnic, religious and cultural barriers to understand
each other.
On a simpler, less moralistic note, the delegation from St Stephen's
school can safely be said to have had an amazing time.
Arriving at Cairo international airport from Fiumicino, we were
greeted by a school bus which took us to our hotel on the banks
of the Nile in the suburb of Maadi. During the journey fragments
of Islamic history lessons suddenly came pouring back into our
heads as we saw the Citadel, or Mosque of Ali, and other architectural
wonders of the Muslim world.
On Thursday morning we were greeted by our hosts, who (in my
case, anyway, though I can vouch for all the others) treated
us so well that it was uncomfortable. Before starting the actual
conference as the delegation as a whole, we traveled to Saquarra
in the desert to see the first step pyramids and Mastabas built
by the Egyptians some 5,000 years ago. Apart from the impressive
edifices, the occasional tourist guide dressed up as a Bedouin
(or, as he would say, as "Yasser Arafat") ensured
that our photos of the event were memorable.
Then, back to our wonderful hosts, who conjured up magnificent
sushi on the first night. Without going into detailed descriptions,
suffice to say that we were treated like kings; hiding in the
dirty laundry to escape going back to school became a tempting
solution to our problems, ere the black day of departure loomed
ever more menacingly ahead.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, having verified that we were
properly fed and watered and cultured, what, may you ask, did
we actually do in the MUN conference (for want of a better word,
and for self esteem's sake)? Well, before heading off, each
and every one of us attended regularly weekly meetings and had
examined our country in general and more importantly, its position
on certain topics, such as Security Council reform, conflicts
as a consequence of petroleum extraction, and so on and so forth.
Each of us had with meticulous care drawn up resolutions for
those issues, which would be presented to the general assembly,
ECOSOC, or the Security Council, depending on where the delegate
was allocated. For my part, the daunting prospect of representing
Japan at the Security Council had been quivering above my head
since before the summer holiday. However, armed with the invaluable
knowledge bestowed upon us during the weekly, I set off gaily
with an apple in my pocket and my handkerchief in the others
to debate the issues.
Now, it is with great sadness that I have to announce a split
within the St. Stephen's Fellowship, for I do not know what
exactly happened in either the GA or ECOSOC, and therefore,
it is with great sadness that I announce that from now on, I
shall speak mostly of the matters discussed within the Security
Council.
For those of you who do not know much about the workings of
the UN, the Security Council has been described as the Nucleus
of the UN, dealing primarily with the issues of security and
peace throughout the world. There are 5 permanent members (France,
UK, China, USA, and the Russian Federation), each with veto
power (the power to annul a resolution), supposedly to maintain
stability and order within the UN. Then there are 10 temporary
members, elected from the GA to the Security Council for a period
of 2 years. At the present time these countries are: Argentina,
Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar,
Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Tanzania.
So, on the first day, we all met to discuss the first issue,
the reform of the Security Council. As predicted, the UK and
more importantly the USA, were against such measures, as they
associated reform with loss of power for their own countries.
So, after 3 hours of awkward negotiation, in part due to the
very particular set of rules and etiquette required by the UN,
they vetoed the resolution. Three hours of work down the drain-or
was it really down the drain? Well, no; in fact, their action
of vetoing the resolution was extremely beneficial. Firstly,
it led all of us delegates to believe that behind the false
mask of international cooperation and peace lies the very selfish
interests of individual countries. Secondly, their hasty veto
showed the rest of the delegation exactly what honeyed clauses
and flattering discourses to use, in order to make sure that
the other resolutions would not be vetoed.
The next resolutions, on petroleum-fuelled conflicts, on the
action to be taken in the DR of Congo, on the Lebanon would
as a result all be passed with a large majority of votes, including
the controversial resolution on the recent Lebanon War. It is
funny how we can be manipulated by soft flattering words and
complicated sentences, and be tricked into agreeing with resolutions
that do not necessarily advantage us. Halfway through these
tense discussions, our guest speaker, a journalist named Lawrence
Pintak with 30 years of experience in covering the middle east
came to talk to us. Suddenly, we became enraptured, having previously
been bored stiff due to life threatening decisions of choosing
one word to replace another, in order to satisfy a delegate's
sense of self importance (even though often, the amendments
made a murky clause even murkier!). Although the journalist
had very obviously chosen his words carefully to be as politically
correct as possible, it became quite clear that, even without
the classic phrases such as ˜open our minds to other cultures"
and "intercultural dialogue," this journalist had
fully embraced a very different culture (Arabic) from his own.
Before us stood a man that encapsulated all of the virtues that
we ourselves were trying to develop, and this, without losing
his sense of identity. Inspired by our newly found guru, we
proceeded to add the finishing touches on a shaky resolution
on Lebanon that for the most part advised actions that had already
been taken (!).
In the final hours of the Security Council meeting, our MUN
president ran breathless into the room shouting that the Security
Council needed to act immediately on a pressing matter: according
to official US intelligence, North Korea had sold nuclear missiles
to terrorist organisations, and had threatened to take aggressive
action against neighbouring countries should the USA not reopen
negotiations. During the next hour, all delegates worked frantically
to produce a resolution that would appease the situation. I
am glad to say that such a resolution was approved by the Security
Council and that it is now stored in the top secret archives,
in the vaults beneath the concrete floors of the CAC.
With the North Korean incident firmly behind us, the lunch menu
looked suddenly much more appetising. A closing ceremony, a
night and a 3-hour flight later, all of us, delegates of St
Stephen's found ourselves back in Rome, already melancholic
of our time in Cairo.
So, this report concludes the following, in true MUN speech:
· Enthused by the recent MUN conference held at the Cairo
American College in 2006,
· Saddened by the recent closure of said conference,
· The St Stephens School delegation:
1. Urges all St Stepheners to take part in the next MUN conference,
to vent their brains to the winds of diversity,
2. Thanks in particular Mr Nieman and all of the teaching staff
for permitting such a delegation to travel, and ensuring that
their stay was as pleasant as possible,
Remi Drouin, was one of two delegates in the Security Council,
recognized with an official prize as Outstanding Delegate as
representative of Japan. |
-
-
Gideon's Speech
|
-
-
Martina's Speech
|
-
-
ECOSOC Voting II
|
-
-
Security council
|
-
-
Remi lobbying
|
|
|
|
|
-
-
Saqqara Pyramids 27th century B.C
|
|
|
