If you walk into any Model United Nations conference you will see students take on roles as diplomats, investigate international issues, debate, deliberate, consult, and then develop solutions to world problems. Beyond that, no two Model United Nations conferences are essentially alike. Some conferences have a press team and some have plenary sessions. Some have awards. Some last a single day and some are carried out over five days. There are many differences in the forums that are set up to debate issues; Security Council, Human Rights, Environment, Disarmament, CCPCJ, SOCHUM, ECOSOC, POLSEC, ICJ, and Special Conference are just a few of the different rooms where students are discussing specialized topics. With so many differences, I was confronted with the question several years ago, "just how close do MUN conferences come to simulating the operation of the real UN?" The fact of the matter is there is no SOCHUM or POLSEC forum at the UN. There are in fact six organs of the UN: The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the UN Secretariat. What's up with all these other rooms we simulate? Well, let's just say many conferences adapt their own rooms and procedures and are flexible with "the rules" based on many factors, including how many days the delegates have to debate and how many students attend the conference.
Making new MUN friends while attending the opening ceremony of WIMUN
at the Palace of Nations in Geneva
For years I have been training my students to follow parliamentary procedures and to vote by majority rule when discussing resolutions. That's how THIMUN has done things for 50+ years and how many affiliated conferences structure their own procedures. But that's not how things happen at the real UN today. In the 74th session (2019) of the UN General Assembly, 245 resolutions were adopted: 158 or 65 percent were adopted by consensus, only 87 of them were voted upon. In the recent past, as many as 80 percent were adopted by consensus. At the United Nations, an emphasis is put on showing a united international front towards the issues facing the world. After all, due to the non-binding nature of United Nations resolutions and reports (except in the Security Council), success depends on international cooperation across the board.
There is one MUN organization that claims to most closely simulate the real United Nations. Several years ago I met Bill Yotive who once worked in one of the agencies of the UN in NYC and has since established an MUN organization that runs closer to the proceedings of the real UN than any other MUN organization or conference. While I don't want to make a point here that all other MUN conferences are"fake", I was fascinated to learn about consensus building (resolutions adapted without a vote) and how Bill brought this concept to the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA) International Model United Nations (WIMUN).
What is consensus building? As expressed in the United Nations outreach page https://outreach.un.org/mun/content/how-decisions-are-made-un, if a resolution is not legally binding then the best way to encourage all Member States to implement the recommendations expressed in a resolution is to get all of them to agree on the same text. When a resolution is adopted by a simple majority, those that did not vote in favor of a resolution on a particular agenda item will be less likely to implement the actions on an agenda item that are recommended in a resolution. As membership in the United Nations grew over the years, the Member States recognized that consensus, rather than majority, was a more effective way of expressing global desires.
When you adopt resolutions by a vote, you only need to get a simple majority to agree on the text of a resolution. You don’t need to care about or try to understand the perspectives of the minority who disagree. This process is divisive. When you adopt resolutions by consensus, you have to be concerned about the viewpoint of everyone and engage in negotiations that often result in compromises so that different points of view are taken into consideration. This process is inclusive.
What I observed at WIMUN's Geneva conference in early November was fascinating. Delegates, both in the high school and university levels, came to the conference having researched the topic they were going to focus on in their Committee/Council/Commission. The delegates began their research on the agenda topic based on the Secretary-General's Report. The reports and all research stems from current and relevant work of the UN. https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/en/. So far it sounds pretty much like any MUN conference. However, rather than prepare a full resolution on one of several topics to be debated in a forum, delegates at WIMUN arrived with a one-page position paper on the single agenda item of that forum. The paper outlined the topic background, their countries position on the agenda item and proposed solutions to the issue.
For most of my time at WIMUN I observed a university level group in the General Assembly Second Committee B who were discussing Harmony with Nature. The Committee Session began with formal meetings to adopt the Organization of Work, specifying how the time would be organized for debate, and with an Interactive Session giving delegates an opportunity to deepen their knowledge on the topic they would be debating and to agree on a common structure for the operative section of the resolution. They also got to apply to be on a speakers list and present opening speeches to announce their countries position. Delegates then organized themselves into block nation groups, usually arranged by geopolitical ideology. The groups spent the better half of a day informally hashing out the important points of their topic papers and creating text for their preambular (PP) and operative (OP) paragraphs based on one of four sub-topics assigned to each block nation. Harmony with Nature had the following four sub-topics: Global Jurisprudence, Grassroots Movements and Education, Sustainable Infrastructure, and Climate Consequences. In the end, each block came out with roughly 25-30 OP's.
The process I found most interesting and different than anything I had every observed in my 20+ years with MUN was called the Vienna Formula; when the four block nation groups come together to create a draft resolution. The task at hand was to take the 4x25+ OPs and narrow them down to 30-35 OPs, merging their ideas into one resolution. Whenever a nation dug in their heels to argue the importance of a paragraph and sub-paragraph (clause or sub-clause), the other groups began asking questions to figure out the most important points that were "non-negotiable" and then figure out a way to negotiate or work towards a common goal. Often times the group figured out it was "simply" a word that was most insulting and a quick change in reference was the key to coming to consensus or agreeing without a vote so the debate could move forward with everyone in agreement. When debate came to a standstill because there was nothing that would change the mind of a country or block nations group, then the group suggested to the Secretariat to table the discussion, to come back to it, and then move on to the next paragraph. I loved that everyone got a chance to be a leader at the table. I loved the communication back and forth between the leader and their group. And I really loved that all voices were heard, because with consensus, everyone has to defend their perspective and justify their position, giving others an opportunity to change a mind or negotiate new words with different meaning so that the ideas being debated could be included in the resolution so everyone agrees to the text. This is the true decision making process at the UN.
Many students were concerned that their merged paragraphs would end up being too vague and ineffective. Mr. Yotive addresses this as he walked around from Committee to Committee, commenting, "In consultation, when there is disagreement on a certain point, ask the question, is there some way to incorporate two positions that seem to be opposed? Perhaps look at another way of saying something that is more general. Sometimes you need to be more general, if not vague, as you start off discussing text in a resolution. And take the long view on these issues. f you come into negotiations with to high expectations you'll fail. Real diplomats know some issues will go on for years. Over time you'll see gradual change in ideas and opinions. Fifty years ago a majority of countries were fully in favor of the death penalty. Today 28% fully retain capital punishment."
Below is a brief collage of videos of delegates in the Vienna Formula session merging their different drafts into one resolution. They are calling out numbers (reference to a specific PP or OP) and trying to argue for support for their paragraphs. It starts with a very calm group of college level students and ends with the organized chaos of high schoolers in heated debate. With experience the high school students learn to talk through one point at a time and not have four merging objectives going at once!
Once the delegates narrowed their OPs from 100 to 30 they were ready to go into session with their one resolution and review it paragraph by paragraph by the entire committee. Amendments are proposed by non-sponsors to the resolution until text can be agreed upon with consensus. When the wording of an entire paragraph is agreed upon it is marked, "Agreed ad ref" to indicate that the Committee has temporarily agreed to the text in that paragraph until the entire negotiation process has been completed.
I was truly impressed with the inclusivity of this process and how little effort, at least with experienced university level delegates, it actually took to work through the wording and bring everyone in agreement with the text and overall idea presented in a paragraph of a resolution. In the end the victory was truly for everyone and not the majority.
A huge thank you to Bill Yotive and Finn Carlson of World Federation of United Nations Associations for welcoming me with open arms and holding my hand through the consensus process. You've given me a lot to think about.
Comments