“VANCOU-VER à NEW-YORK”- Model United-Nations-Summit

April 2006

One can always get a reasonable idea of where a certain polity’s priorities lay by simply examining the visible structures that are supposed to represent that polity. Evaluating the efforts devoted to maintaining the symbols of any polity’s ideology will show the observer what is valued and what is neglected. The United Nations building in New-York was built in the 1960’s. A symbol to the world that the international community would never again allow the atrocities of War to ravage the landscape of humanity; as it had done twice within a time period of less than half a century. “Total War” could never again be allowed. The United Nations was born out of the ashes of a failed League-of-Nations, charged with the same mandate, to prevent conflict and war, to maintain the dignity of humanity by ensuring basic human rights. It now stands in two major cities, New-York and Gene.va.

The building in Gene.va is magnificent. In Ameri-ca, though once a beautiful monument, it has not been kept up and now stands dwarfed by far wealthier institutions, hardly a building worthy of its noble mandate. Clearly this structure was something in its day, but that was back when the nations of the world still held out high hopes for world peace and a new international order.

The ceiling in the entrance to the UN general assembly is pealing. The actual general assembly has not been updated since it was built a half century ago. Its podium has hosted JFK and Nikita Khrushchev alike. Yet I and another fourth year political science student thought we were in the wrong building. This assembly hall did not seem to match the picture we had envisaged; the image we had built up to be so much from our readings, from our political studies, through looking at photos, and watching black and white recorded speeches; mostly though, I think it did match up with our idealized image we had made the UN out to be.

Every year in the spring, the UN hosts a conference for University students from around the world to participate in a mock UN general assembly Sum-mit. This year, 3400 students came to New-York with delegations from as far as Af-ghanistan and Ir-aq. I came with more than 20 students representing the delegation from our school: Simon-Fraser-University. We were the Republic of the Su-dan and, as such, were to represent the government of Su-dan’s interests and not our own. Needless to say, “Canadian” values and Su-danese governmental interests do not correlate. It is like debating the Pro-Life side of an argument when you are actually a staunch Pro-Choice supporter. If you have ever had to do it, you are no doubt already well aware of the thorny complications that can arise from arguing for something you don’t believe in. That is unless you’re an unscrupulous politician such as I!

What I found most remarkable and perplexing, though, were the resolutions we ended up passing at the end of our General Assembly Second Committee. We, essentially, passed eight different bills which all vowed to solve the world’s problems in eight completely different ways. All were adopted and all were supposed to be implemented. Rather utopian and just as utterly unfeasible to bring to pass. Unfortunately, the spectacle was rather true to form for the UN. Such General Assemblies pass similar bills, perhaps not eight all with the same goal, but similar grand sweeping solutions that never have the practical or pragmatic ability to be implemented. Sadly, consensus building is the lowest common denominator when it comes to policy creating and execution. Indeed it might be the most democratic way but, it is, by any standard, the most inefficient. Of course the alternative is an authoritarian dictator so really we are left with the best of the worst and most ineffective systems to choose from. What are we to do with a body that has been built from the inside to be structurally incapable of fulfilling its mandate?

With this kind of consensus building, what can originally be a great idea becomes so watered down with the interests of various countries and lobby groups that by the time it is passed, it contains a one-hundredth part of its originality. It then goes to the bureaucratic tall blue-green building of glass that most people probably recognize as the UN from postcards. This is yet another vortex of forgotten papers and motions which devours good intentions insatiably, like a roaring forest fire devours the piecemeal water dumps dropped by bombers.

In the UN’s entire history, it is agreed by many scholars that the only time the Security Council has been able to act properly was during the 1992 Gulf War. Saddam’s invasion was a clear act of aggression against a sovereign nation that none could dispute. The Council was forced to act, some players more willingly than others. This is the only time East and West have acted in harmony in such a capacity; which is strange considering the amount of wars and bloodshed that happened outside of this conflict in the past half century. A Council with countries’ like France—whose clout and voice do not match its economy or population—cannot survive when countries like India, with a population 15 fold greater than France’s and a seemingly insatiable economy, sit outside in the General Assembly.

With these detractors clearly and painfully acknowledged what I don’t mean to say is that the UN is useless and no longer a reasonable project. I actually believe just the opposite. It is, for some, all they have to believe in. It is the ideal that the UN seeks to be, it is the constant chasing of an impossible dream that makes this institution a worthwhile ambition. That backwater hellish war zones in the Con-go, So-malia, or East-Timor could someday turn around and become sites of peace and order is what those who suffer in these areas dream of. The civilians of these regions, who are usually the pawns of marauding warlords, can only hope that someone more powerful than the warlords will one day make possible a return to their homes. For these people, all they have to put their hope in is the UN. Like it or not, the UN is all we have and, thus, I will forever put my weight behind it, corrupt and inefficient though t may be, I will do what I can to maintain its noble ideals. This is the European approach, and their UN building in Ge-neva is an awe inspiring monument to it. The UN had the capability of eradicating small pox yet it also had the built-in structural weakness to fall prey to a billion dollar oil for food scandal. When responsibility is spread out so thinly in such an organization it is hard to locate the actors accountable for UN incompetence.

Taking the good with the bad then, hopefully the elections in the Con-go on July 31^st will be a badly needed victory for the UN in Af-rica and a step forward in their dismal performance on that continent. Hopefully the UN can somehow find the confidence that it needs from the nations of the world to sustain its credibility. It might take until our idealistic generation—that wants to solve humanity’s problems eight different ways—comes of age.