Sick of it All

By: Sönke Pietsch

After extensively deliberating communicable diseases and organ transplants, it seems as if the delegates have yet another problem on their hands, that wasn’t even mentioned on the MUNUM background guide: “brain deadness”. Luckily, a handful of delegates as well as chairs have jumped right into action to aid their fellow representatives. 

First to the rescue were two members of the dais - with the performance of a second hand show of Jedis fighting, a spinoff that had the whole committee laughing. After this spectacular spectacle, the delegates from Canada and Hungary blessed the committee with an interesting version of High School Musical’s “Breaking Free”, even reacting the opening scene. Not to go unnoticed, the delegate of Jamaica strolled to the front of his room to present to an alternative version of the Gettysburg Address.

Not to go unchallenged, the delegates from Israel, Canada and Hungary quickly followed suit and introduced a resolution to change the Kazakhstan’s name to “Quackastan”. The reason you ask? Kazakhstan is too hard to pronounce. Having made this institutional change, the delegates from Australia, Russia and Vietnam felt a rising sense of jealousy and turned in their version of a “working paper”. In line with what this committee has turned into, they suggested that delegate of Australia become a member of the dias only to “just sit there”.

With the number of chairs greater by one, the new team decided to round out the session by performing a spectacular version of Bohemian Rhapsody. Matching in pitch and intonation, it can clearly be said that these chairs knew what they were doing, at least when it came to singing. The fate of their other responsibilities is yet to be decided. 

To Nationalize or To Privatize

By: Sönke Pietsch

In an age when every decision, every idea, every word seems to have a consequence of some sort, the importance of the decisions our representatives make can be hard to overstate. One contested and constantly resurfaced aspect is whether to privatize industries or nationalize. Answering this question for each sector of our economy is challenging at best, and close to possibly impossible in reality. 

Evaluating the condition a country is in, considering the size of the proposed sector being privatized or nationalized, to understanding the public perception of each option, an answer that satisfies everyone is not easy to come by, exemplifying the many challenges faced by representatives in this decision-making process. However, the process of answering this question does not end there. One needs to consider the constantly evolving changes that all industries face in the 21st century — a policy that is made today may not be a policy that suffices tomorrow, and thus, requires constant revisions.

After extensive debate about which option wins the upper hand, the delegates of the International Press Corps have come to a conclusion: no conclusion. The sheer number of variables to consider when making such influential decisions would make for the perfect Model UN conference: one aspect for every committee to discuss in detail, with plenty left to spare. 

However, using just a few industries as a frame for a broader discussion, one can delve deeper into the topic to truly examine what industries are best suited for privatization and which are better left to be nationalized. Starting with the current, hot-topic of health care, the Working Paper writers have concluded that this industry is better left off without an answer — at least one that is either solidly in the privatization or nationalization camp. Instead, leaving health care as a cocktail of both private and national interests leaves consumers with the best aftertaste. Modeled after the French health care system, having a national-payer system provide the imperative care necessary for all citizens is quite effective as individuals are also granted the choice to opt for private health care at any time. Allowing these two systems to live in harmony has given the people of France the greatest choice of any European country, and has made the French some of the healthiest in all of Europe while simultaneously keeping expenses low. 

While this may have worked for health care, it is necessary to understand that the French model of combining the two systems of private and national industry only works under a special set of circumstances. If public, government-backed healthcare had suffered from a poor public image at the time of nationalization, then the act of doing so without a doubt would have failed. 

Another industry has faced a similar dilemma: public housing. As mentioned in national newsreel highlights, to being featured in Lil Scrappy's “Livin’ In The Projects,” government-backed housing has not been portrayed nor received as a positive public image. Seen as second-class by some, it is clear that this industry is best left in the hands of private corporations. By understanding private consumer preferences and having the resources to individualize and customize houses, privatization of the housing industry can meet its needs to a much greater extent than any national entity ever could. 

However, if one were to ask a European this same question at the end of World War 2, hearing the answer of the “private industry” would have been nearly impossible. This is due in part to the variables needed, but difficult to grasp during this time: quick action, extensive funding, and comprehensive planning. After European citizens were welcomed by a pile of rubble and ash as their form of housing, only a nationalized industry acted quickly, and without the greed of private corporations, to prevent the possible greatest outbreak of homelessness in human history. While nationalization acted in a timely manner in this instant, the opposite is also true about this option in regard to the payment system.

In this manner, a nationalized system was considered highly ineffective. Discussed and elaborated upon in the back rooms of the newspaper, having a national banking system with a singular player would come dangerously close to the idea of communism, all while ineffectively serving each individual (in a timely matter). By treating every citizen the same financially,  the incentive of working vanishes, resulting in a greater slowdown in productivity in all other sectors. 

Yet again, under a different set of circumstances, choosing a different answer between privatization and nationalization could have easily been equally valid. As has been evident, the opinions reached by this special committee are highly divisive all the while alternative reasoning could easily explain why another choice may be better suited. The decisions we make today may not be the correct ones for tomorrow but in the end, all we can do is elect the best representatives we deem fit as every decision, every idea and every word they choose, does directly impacts us. 

To Try or Not To Try

By: Sönke Pietsch

Model United Nations is an extracurricular activity that provides a wealth of opportunities for students of various ages by challenging every scholar’s inner patience, collaboration skills, and debate. The conference at the University of Michigan serves as an amazing catalyst for delegates of various levels of experience, ranging from veteran representatives churning out working papers 5 minutes into committee to complete novices; this opportunity allows every student to project their skill and knowledge. Yet, some delegates, especially those new to the experience, are sometimes intimidated by the others and instead, choose to retreat into silence and do nothing. 

The question obviously at hand: what do these delegates do with the idle time they spend in committee? The answer to this question is more surprising than some might think. 

The first option that usually comes to mind when boredom hits hard is using, or more accurately *misusing*, a tool usually preserved as an alternative to cross-talk: note passing. Drawing scribbles on folded pieces of scrap paper or playing a round of tic-tac-toe with a friend on the other side of committee seems to be the go-to option for many newly trialed-delegates. Even for some, playing these games through note passing is simply just another form of game pigeon but on paper. 

Here comes our first tip - when passing notes, you need to ensure that your dias, in this case specifically the pager, does not examine the contents of your ‘notes’ when bringing the paper to your friend. Even better, I recommend that you personally escort your paper to your friend and ensure it’s safe delivery without a hitch. For all those without this option, we recommend simply sharing the inside info on who did this, or who did that, maybe even related to policy, to make time pass faster. 

Another appealing option for some delegates, especially those that actually want to take advantage of literally being at Model UN conference, is writing a resolution - granted, despite the fact  that would never actually be addressed in the United Nations. Learning the formatting and language of a working paper draft can be beneficial nonetheless, although the ideas found inside it, are probably not written with the thought in mind to be taken seriously. 

Let us enlighten you with yet another tip. When writing your resolution, regardless of content, make sure to use the outline and vocabulary list provided by your MUNUM handbook. This is tool is invaluable, and will act as your best friend for any future conference that you may attend, regardless of committee. Even better yet, by using this resource, you may even have the chance of having your paper be read out loud by the chair.

The final path some delegates take in their conquest against  boredom is trying to insert themselves into the conversations of the matters at hand. While moderated caucuses and speakers lists may seem daunting, some delegates choose to participate in their committees through unmoderated caucuses or Q&As. However, what all these delegates have failed to consider, is that at the end of the day, you could always just join IPC...

An Aisle to Success

By: Sönke Pietsch

An aisle can be a lot of things. It can act as corridor connecting one end of a room to another. It can be a catwalk for a fashion show. Some even consider it to be a pathway to prosperity. Yet in the United States Senate, the aisle has acted as the barrier between the two opposing councils: the Democrats and the Republicans. 

As committee moves into its fourth session and representatives gear up to introduce their creative solutions to the issues addressed, delegates are increasingly finding that they have to cross the aisle separating the fractured, bipartisan room. While few tethers have yet to be thrown across the aisle towards the other party, some delegates have stepped out of line and amended their working papers to be friendly towards the opposing party. In doing so, delegates are increasingly walking the fine line that is the aisle between representing the beliefs of their constituents, and ensuring that their working papers have a chance of survival.

Making his way down the aisle in his committee room that separates the section of seats into two to give a speech at the front of the room, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama (Republican) presented his working paper addressing the upgrade and reorganizing the American powergrid to better fend off the possibility of foreign meddling. While Senator Shelby could technically pass his paper without the aid of other senators, as his party currently reaps the benefits of being in the majority, he nonetheless included clauses that were friendly to opposing counsel, the Democrats. 

Other delegates, especially those from the Democratic camp, have not enjoyed these same benefits. For instance, Senator Smith (Democrat) from Minnosota has had to amend her working paper to make sure to secure the votes of the Republican camp. By making sure that industry is still allowed to use non-renewable sources in the short term, Smith hopes to garner the support of Republicans for her proposal that primarily focuses and using 100% green energy moving forward. 

Yet, the fact that Smith, along with a handful of other Senators from both political parties, was willing to reach across party lines and listen to opposing opinions, goes to show that the aisle, with so many different meanings and purposes, is in fact only an illusion.

Spinning into the 1992 Olympics

By: Sönke Pietsch

Picture the British House of Commons. Speakers stand in the middle of the four sections of opposing benches. Choosing one group to address is unrelentingly difficult and a challenge to master successfully. This is the exact situation some delegates in the International Olympic Committee face when addressing the room as a whole. Not wanting to turn their backs on over a fourth of the council at one time, some delegates have seemingly chosen to put on a show: spinning 360° in one place while balancing the act of giving their speech. 

Debates are making 360 circles more than the delegates seem to be able to. From discussing the benefits and downsides of possibly co-hosting the competition between two nations to addressing the issues of neutrality in the possible host nations for the 1992 Olympics, every representative seems to constantly bring new ideas, points and considerations to the table. To put this into perspective, delegates have already discussed the possibility of hosting the 1992 games in Tokyo, Athens, Sweden and Finland (co-hosting), USSR, Australia and Mecca to name a few, although a plethora of other cities and countries have been flung into the conversation and have yet to be addressed. In the meantime, delegates continue their substantive debates.The Jamaican representative’s would like  to “finally know where the funding for all of this will come from”. As one, delegates from all parts of the world seem to be able to choose from an endless (just like a circle) list of facets when addressing the question of where the 1992 Olympics will be. 

While the room deliberates on where the Olympics should be held, two delegates seem to have already decided for each other where the games will not be held. In a flurry of spinning rights of replies, the representatives of the USSR and Australia have launched fact-filled jabs at each other in an effort to dissuade the committee from choosing their opposition as the optimal location for the 1992 games. In one particularly inflammatory right of reply, the delegate of the USSR shot back at Australia’s comments of irrelevance by “finding the comments deeply respectful” and “laughing hysterically at the prospect of ‘hopping on the Australian wave’”. As is evident, these delegates still have much to debate

While the delegates continue their debates, the committee seems to have come full circle in the agreement that finding consensus in answering the topic question is impossible. To put it into the words of the chair of the IOC, the topic, different perspectives and working papers have reached “17 levels of absolute not” while the internal dynamics continue to shift. To close, the delegates from IPC wish the entire committee the best of luck in any of the endless future endeavors and does not spin out of control. 

BHOC Yells For Health Care

By: Sönke Pietsch

When thinking of a politician, an image of finely dressed and high-heeled debaters usually comes to mind. Setting policy for an entire government, nation or even the world, the highest degree of professionalism is required, or at least expected from these individuals; the power these individuals hold from their high ranks in public office perceive an image of responsibility. While assurance that these individuals keep the best interest of their constituents in mind at all times, is generally present.  

This can not be said for the British House of Commons in 1945. Through a flurry of “I”s and “No”’s, these delegates try their absolute best to represent and differentiate the interest of their voters through a cloud of screeches, shouts, and screams from their surrounding 53 counterparts. In the British House of Commons, delegates represent their opinion in voting procedure by joining a loud mass of delegates who are either in favor or oppose a resolution, motion or idea. The power and value of the individual vote is lost.

Discussing health care, the representatives in the British House of Commons are faced with the challenging dilemma of whether to nationalize or privatize this industry after the crushing challenges triggered by reconstruction of World War 2. While the spokeswomen and spokesmen of this committee are open to working with opposing councils, the paths that the two major parties of the committee vary drastically. One representative, Sir Richard Crossman, believes that “nationalization is essential as it provides businesses with the benefit of government spending”. Later in session, when a motion to hold a moderated caucus about ministry spending was proposed, the delegate hurled a resounding “I” into the committee. 

After the Chair joined the screams of House with an interjection of “Order”, the House returned to substantive debate. Addressing the previous issue of spending, liberal representative James Henderson-Stewart soon chimed in believing that “we can not solely address one aspect of reforming health care, such as funding. Instead, we must focus the interconnectivity of it all”, believing housing, jobs, healthcare and the economy are all connected. When the motion of a moderated caucus about health care was proposed, this delegates, in opposition, joined the minority by yelling “no”. 

While the individual vote might get lost in the mass of sound that is the voting procedure in the British House of Commons, the committee still provides extensive opportunity for expressing the views of constituents through moderated caucuses. Nonetheless, this form of debate is still riddled with chaos as representatives may choose to interject in the middle of a delegate’s speech at any moment. When conservative Peter Thorneycroft held a speech about the importance of considering Britain’s massive empire in the reconstruction of the country, the delegate seemingly drowned in interjections from delegates, quick to point out that this topic was reserved for the alternative topic. Limited by time, the representative made the best of his opportunity to explain his view while dodging any further interjections shot at him.

While the committee might be chaotic at certain moments, it is abundantly clear that the committee is well on it’s way to drafting working papers that will shape health care, as well as a wealth of yet to-be discussed topics, for the millions of citizens of Great Britain. These changes might even apply to the persons of the British Empire, provided that representatives are able to dodge further interjections, when the committee once again decides that it is time yet again to yell for health care.