FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Inside Harvard’s World Model UN Conference

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It all seems like the sweet idealistic guff of elementary school. Ideas are yet to form their hard lines, and one entertains hopes that a bully will get his comeuppance eventually.  Good will triumph, and the murky world shall be ordered.  But a model United Nations Conference is as good as any for such an experiment.  There will be the cynics, the cold realists, the mountebanks, the entertainers and the fools.  Aspirations eventually go the way of all flesh.  The one certainty about such occasions is the boon for the economy of the host city – 2000 delegates from over 65 countries are not turning up impecunious.  Many have money to burn.

Melbourne is playing host to the twenty-first Harvard World Model UN Conference that has managed, the organisers proudly claim, to visit to six continents.  Antarctica, muses the secretary of the model conference, might be next.  This is not merely for show.  It is considered one of the world’s largest international student-led youth conferences, first held in Miedzyzdroje in 1992 with the removal of the Iron Curtain fresh in memory.  Locals might well have been suspicious at such smug triumphalism on the part of their American enthusiasts, but internationalism has always had different meanings.

The agenda this time around is what the world will look like after the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, including eight targets in health, education, finance and human rights (Science in Public, Mar 19).  Heavy stuff, though immediately, one senses that the fluff will invariably find its way into proceedings.  Any guess is as good as another.

The conference itself is being held at a monster of a venue – the infamous “Jeff’s Shed” named after the bombastic former premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett.  The auditorium featuring the opening addresses on Tuesday were a show case about what is lamentably wrong and intriguingly right about the United Nations.  A smoke ceremony featuring indigenous dancers who looked like they had just gotten out of bed started the show.  This was an ersatz UN effort down to a tee – the ceremonial indulgence, speeches so dull they were soporific.

What is all this in aid off?  The excited musings of hormonally charged undergraduates, certainly, with the idea of a “Global Village” filled with theme songs, copious food and bottomless drink.  The big boys and girls were insisting there was more to it, with the mock lobbying and jousting over resolutions and platforms.

One thing was getting clearer: the UN was getting a grand whitewash.  The master of ceremonies was, oddly enough, a chap named Adam Smith.  A few in the audience half-expected the Scottish economist to appear via hologram.  Instead, it was a functionary schooled in the right phrases for the occasion.  We were to be treated to an “Olympics of the mind”, and, in a true mangling of language, a feast of “thought leaders”.

Messages of welcome were pre-recorded by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who spoke of the chance of the “unique opportunity” for “delegates from around the world” to “experience the challenges of international negotiation and diplomacy” and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who re-iterated the “power of young people to change the world”.  At no point was there even that humorous aside from George Bernard Shaw that youth is very much wasted on the young.

Nearest the mark, in terms of describing the complexity and the near futility of the UN experiment, was former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, self-proclaimed mastermind behind the responsibility to protect doctrine he gave form in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs.  (Fittingly, he was initially introduced with a slip of the tongue: “Gareth Evidence”)

The responsibility to protect has been remorselessly twisted and cranked since its mention.  While it’s all well to scold governments for their brutality and indifference to populations, the question of who polices that doctrine has never been satisfactorily answered.  If Libya was an example of such a move, then we might have to lay that one to rest. Be wary of who is doing the protecting.  Not that this troubled Evans, who claimed with deadpan certainly that “lives were saved” by the NATO intervention.  Pity the people of Syria, he suggested, who have seen no equivalent will.

For Evans, attempts at reforming the organisation proved ambitiously “quixotic”.  The Security Council was all too often a hostage to power.  The General Assembly remained a giant chat room.  The UN showed instances of graft and corruption.  It proved unwieldy. Despite this, it was still “better value than bankers and hamburgers”. The denizens of Goldman Sachs and Burger King might disagree, but at least on that score, Evans might have a point.  Certainly, if one considers a few of the success stories be it in health, be it, however mixed, in Cambodia during its transition to a post-Khmer Rouge state, we might see some reason for a measured, if very sober optimism.

The UN is a hydra headed beast that should be in mourning for itself.  But it costs less than people think, does more than people know, and stumbles as much as its members allow it to.  It is the imperfect creature international communities have made it.  While it is tedious to hear the strained promises of “ideas” that will “transform” the world, ideas need a place to seed.  If there are any worth remembering from this gathering, beyond the crafted slogans, the deals and the post-kiss hangovers, then it might have been worth it.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail