NMUN 2008 Reflection Paper

Diana Zarick

I participated in the NATO committee. It is a small committee of 26 member states. About half of the delegates had two member teams. The interaction between delegates in the small committee was not completely dominated by the delegates from states with more resources. Most leverage actually came from delegates who were the most prepared for the conference; i.e. the delegates who knew what to expect and who had previously participated in Model United Nations or practiced simulations in clubs back at school.

By observing how other delegates worked in the NATO committee, I am aware of what it takes to prepare for a committee meeting and how I can bring to the table the resources that the country I represent offers. You can have a very good understanding of your state’s stance on issues and a very good understanding of the resources your state can bring to the table, but if you do not know how to use the rules of procedure to your advantage, then your preparation will be somewhat wasted.

NATO was a rather timely committee to participate in because the biggest NATO summit in its history was held about a week after the NMUN conference to determine NATO’s continued relevance and what direction it will head towards in the future. The way issues were answered at the NATO Bucharest Summit this past week served as a good report card for how on target the resolutions were that the NATO NMUN committee passed. For example, one of the operative clauses in NATO Resolution 1/2 was to recommend “that the Heads of State and Governments of NATO’s Member States admit the countries of Albania and Croatia to NATO during the upcoming Bucharest Summit and requests the Summit to consider the ascension of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.” We were right on target because Albania and Croatia were admitted into NATO at the Bucharest Summit, and also because Greece blocked the admission of Macedonia into NATO due to its nationalist resentment toward the name “Macedonia”.

What the experience helped me to understand about the practice of international diplomacy and how this is illustrative of or different from what I have learned in courses:

I learned in international relations classes that diplomacy is based upon the relative power of states to one another, where states with more resources can rule the day in negotiations. At NMUN, the students made sure to use the resources of their represented state for bargaining power. However, in a consensus based international organization such as NATO, that bargaining strategy does not completely drive the negotiations. I found that even more important than representing a state’s resources in the small consensus based committee was to have social skills. Successful negotiations were based more on a representative’s relative comfort level selling a position when caucusing than on bargaining power based on the representative state’s resources.

Pros and cons of workshop preparation and conference:

The workshop preparation for NMUN 2008 was hands off and easy to fit into a busy schedule. Most of the research required for the conference was done outside the meetings on the delegates’ own time and therefore few meetings were needed to address research questions. The veteran NMUNers and guest speakers gave practical advice.

Our delegation did an adequate amount of research for the state we represented; however, I failed to recognize the importance of looking past research in order to enter the conference with a strategy to address the points of order. I thought that the first few caucuses were a waste of time because all I seemed to do was tell other representatives what The Kingdom of Belgium thinks about each of the points of order, without realizing that my opinion could potentially help influence how other representatives voted for the order of addressing the topics. Thus, the topic order I preferred was closely outvoted.

The preparation materials from the NMUN website were helpful and a more interactive preparation would help new Model UN delegates become more confident with the negotiating process for the conference. I found theworkshop where we enacted the scripted simulation was most helpful for me to visualize what a conference session looks like. The simulation was important but I was not familiar enough with the rules of procedure to recognize when to strategically use procedural actions, or more importantly, what to do in caucusing and to know to transition from talking about topics to writing resolutions. I suppose if I had gone to a training session at NMUN some of my questions may have been answered there.

When I was preparing my position paper, I felt as if I were just writing down anything that made sense. A lot of my research and actions were based on common sense, as the Deputy at the Belgian Mission recommended, but it can only work up to the extent of my ability to know a strategy and purpose for writing a resolution. I know we emailed each other our position papers, but I think if we each talked about our position papers for five minutes with the group in class it would go a long way to get personal feedback on the credibility of our arguments from teammates who are somewhat familiar with the positions. I still do not know if anyone at the conference actually read my position paper or what the point of writing it was, other than to become familiar with the practice of discussing points of order from the official viewpoint of The Kingdom of Belgium.

Some of the delegations at the conference seemed to have consolidated strategies as a group, and would meet each day during the week for each member to give a summary of the day’s proceedings. It would be helpful to have a formal group meeting or two during the week of the conference to allot a specific time to just ask questions and give advice, or to check up on each other’s progress, or even to make it seem like we are important enough of a delegation to be meeting.

The following recommendation can be taken with a grain of salt; however, it could be a potentially workable recommendation. Other delegations at NMUN had very active clubs and Model UN simulations at their home schools. I recommend the head delegate or a past participant organize a club in the fall semester for students who are interested in participating in Model UN. I am aware that NMUN participation is selective, and participation in the club could be a non-mandatory factor to consider on an application to participate in the actual conference. The club could hold mini sessions to practice caucusing and rules of procedure and writing resolutions. I am aware that the club would probably be informal at first and I imagine it would not start out very competitive. However, only after a couple of fall semesters of test running the program would one be able to tell whether or not the club is worth the effort. To make sure that the club has enough general interest, a survey question could be sent out on the undergraduate international relations listserv. If the response level is promising, a preliminary meeting could be organized for the beginning of the fall semester to survey how many people actually show up. I am not sure if there is as much general interest in Model UN simulations at Syracuse University as there is in some schools outside the United States.

I am grateful for having the opportunity to participate in NMUN 2008 as a practical forum for learning concepts. I hope this reflection paper does not sound too pessimistic about the program and that the feedback is taken in light of the fact that I like the program enoughto want to see its continued success. This semester would have been the only semester I could have participated in NMUN, and by working with students I gained a better impression as to methods of studying and applying the topic of international relations.