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.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.