This guest article was written and submitted by Brian Johnson, a rising senior and the President of the MUN program at Robbinsville High School in Robbinsville, New Jersey.
Everything we do in our lives is shaped by our own perspectives. Whether it be about big vs. small government, gun control, immigration, or just the best pizza topping, we all create bubbles for ourselves. They house our thoughts: why one idea is better than the other, and vice versa. Being the things that shape our entire lives, having your own ideas isn’t inherently a bad thing for Model UN. In fact, when it comes to representing a country that aligns with your beliefs, it can even be a good thing: after all, if you have thoughts on a subject, you’re probably well versed with facts and figures to back them. But what about when you find yourself with a country that doesn’t share those beliefs?
It wasn’t that long ago that a friend of mine was representing the Republic of Iraq. Placed into the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the intention of this specialized committee was to solve gender equality and workers’ rights; both of which are hot topics as of late for the republic, especially the former of the two. Setting aside personal views, the fact is that Iraq has had a rough ride over the last few decades: with militant Islamist groups entering the area, and in 2004, Resolution 137 proclaiming sharia law as the determinant of civil justice. In short: the actions of Iraq in recent years did not align with the beliefs of my friend and fellow delegate.
This devastated him and ended up preventing his success.
The entire time out of committee, my friend was stressed over having to defend his country’s alien views. Most of us spend our time arguing for human rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by all; regardless of color or creed. Therefore, when a country is seen to violate those rights, it’s difficult to find a happy-medium. Though researched and learned on Iraq’s views, articulating a convincing argument in support of those views failed. Bloc efforts fell through when he was unable to compromise with other, Western powers. In the end, he was left to meekly shuffle into the crowd: occasionally voting on motions, but making no headway. Of course, his story isn’t his alone, and I’ve known plenty of delegates (perhaps even you, dear reader) to have felt this pain of personal views conflicting with country policy.
So, how do we fight it?
First is to understand exactly what you’re arguing. Though there are many human rights violatiors in human rights committees or petroleum powerhouses in global warming committees, this doesn’t mean your views are necessarily polarized. In effect, these real delegations have to come up with real solutions too, and it comes with respect for their own values. Therefore, try to grasp exactly where on the spectrum your policies lie. A country may preach secularism while practicing pious extremism, and the other way around. Know your country!
Then, don’t just up and forget your own side: incorporate those elements as a counter! This is a tool called “preliminary refutation”, and all that does is give a fancy word to coming up with a counter argument to a point before your opponent can even make it. This is a powerful tool for any debate, but in the case of country policy conflict, it’s especially useful because you already have evidence against it. After all, you’ve probably been arguing for/against a side you’re now on the opposite end of for a while. This is easier said than done, and try not to be too extreme. But when embodying your country, don’t forget that passion counts too.
Third and finally, the best tip is to find friends. Again, this may sound easier said than done, but a lot of times it’s quite simple. One way is using proximity: Venezuela and Colombia are likely to have similar policies against cartels because of their similar experiences. Middle Eastern countries are often in good company too, sharing a common religion and sharia law justice system to support policies in that favor. Further underlying problems can beset a delegate if they can’t find support, but when it comes to policy/perspective confliction, look for similar views, even if they’re just slightly the same.
It’s not easy, but remember that this is a key skill that many judges will look toward when deciding winners. Chairs that see Saudi Arabia preaching for an immediate ban on oils will only disregard them completely. Remember to research, refute, and relate: they’re not just useful for this topic, but for any part of Model UN.
