Harvard Model United Nations

[G. Adams]

Now my Uni is taking part in this Harvard Model UN and I'm gonna apply for it. To do this I gotta do a brief argument (500 words) on a question, and then have an interview based upon that paper. The question I'm gonna do is

The US/UK invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003 left in its wake not simply
a Saddam-less Middle East but grave political and economic repercussions
as well. What are the consequences of foreign/western presence as an
occupying power in the region?

Now I'd really appreciate people throwing ideas up for me to work with, any and all would be good regardless of left/right persuasion, it'll all be good for my interview if not the paper.

And if anyone else has the chance to do it, do, it'd be cool to meet up with other volconvo people in Egypt. Except Impenitant. They have harsh laws for murder over there that I don't fancy facing.

GA,

It has always been my opinion that the Iraq quibble in the end will wind up re-enforcing the UN. I know this is against mainstream opinion so let me tell you why I am so convinced of this.

First, even if it wasn't the UN to decide for an invasion. The public place where it wasn't so decided was clearly the UN. The public at large has a better exposure to what the UN could be.

Second, where only "the coalition" decided not to await a UN decision in spite of popular support outside of US/UK to do so - the public in US/UK is also shifting toward a position of regret coming back to the UN for the clean-up of the situation.

Third, the principle of non-intervention which was the original reason for the strict veto powers has been largely abandoned. Although the official reason for intervention put forward by the US/UK was within the bounds of state self-defense, the background public reason was humanitarian. A newly found conservative push for humanitarian reasons to call for such an intervention is something of a historic win for the humanists, against the nationalists.

Fourth, the subsequent failure to prove the non-humanitarian reasons for intervention has given a great push to the public reason around the sufficiency for humanitarian reasons to intervene in state affairs. It is in my view the safety lock making humanitarian intervention part of what will go further as an "acquis" for humanist interpretation of international law.

The UN, just like Rome, will not be built in one day. The thing needs the practice of actual cases in public debate because in the end the public is what needs to be represented in the UN.

GuidoNius

[Impenitent]

G

LOL... no worries, I don't intend to go to that gig...

but look at the problem honestly... if left to their own accord do you not think there'd be another religious dictator installed as in virtually every other middle eastern country? and the UN is a foreign presence just as much as much as america and england so the argument about a "particular" foreign influence is shot. (you, the us&uk, can't tell them how to live, but we, the un, can... do you not see the hypocrisy?) that's the question that will not be answered... what gives the un the right to impose their "will" on iraq or anywhere any more than the us and uk...

[G. Adams]

Whats bothering me is that the slow reformation that has been made in middle eastern countries such as Syria and Iran will be lost as hardliners reign in these new found rights on the basis of US imperialism. If this occurs the poverty for the population of these countries will be excaserbated, further driving the poor into desperation and the arms of radicals.

Unless there are clear signs from the US that they are not going to attack more middle eastern states, or any at all really, I don't see the Arab nations relaxing at all. The US also needs to cancel all contracts with US companies working in Iraq and give them to either local or neutral countries. Otherwise the middle east will look at US conduct with great cynasism, and rightfully so.

I'm also worried about the UK's split from Europe to tag along with the US. European intergration, which I support whole heartedly, was vulnerable long before this war, but the tensions created between us will make it even harder. With a Labour government under the control of Blair we are ruined in Europe, and the Opposition, the Conservative Party, is even worse. The Liberal Democrats havn't a snowball in hell's chance of winning the oncoming election, and I'm a card carrying LibDem. The best I can hope for is a clean Labour Party coup.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
G

LOL... no worries, I don't intend to go to that gig...

but look at the problem honestly... if left to their own accord do you not think there'd be another religious dictator installed as in virtually every other middle eastern country? and the UN is a foreign presence just as much as much as america and england so the argument about a "particular" foreign influence is shot. (you, the us&uk, can't tell them how to live, but we, the un, can... do you not see the hypocrisy?) that's the question that will not be answered... what gives the un the right to impose their "will" on iraq or anywhere any more than the us and uk...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Look at history of nations that have democratised, succesfully. There is only a handful of countries that successfully democratise through someone elses imposition, and they have always had greatly favourable circumstances. Germany and Japan both had a huge amount of money ploughed into them from the US, far beyond what will be spent on Iraq or Afghanistan. Germany was a founding member of the European Coal and Steal Community, which developed into the EC and then the EU. Both countries both had their infrastructures properly rebuilt quickly, which I doubt will happen in Iraq, and Afghanistan never had one to rebuild, and unless its connected to the pipeline being built, no outside help will go into a proper infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Because of these things, I very much doubt Iraq will achieve democracy because of the US's actions, at least not for another 50 years, and I'll be pleasently surprised if there isn't a civil war in between.

One of the difference's between the Coalition acting without UN support to a UN action is the perception of the Iraqi people. It is seen by many in Iraq and around the middle east, not to mention everyone else in the world, that the US and the UK (governments) are acting in their own interests rather than the people of Iraq's. The US already has an appalling reputation for this kind of imperialism with the underclass of the world. This, rightly or wrongly, is seen as another act of US imperialism, and as britain picking up the reigns again. If the UN had given its support the majority of Iraqi's, the minority of militants would oppose anyone who came to Iraq, would have tolerated occupation better.

More importantly, I believe the US has set a dangerous precedent. As GN has said, the purpose of the UN was to stop war, not to approve it. The US and UK crippled all attempts by other UN nations to stop the war. Not too mention pre-emptive action. It has, as was seen in Israel attacking a camp in syrian territory, founded the basis for other nations to attack nations with a 'clear and present danger'. The lessons learned after WWII are being forgotten.

[Impenitent]

the "reformation" isn't good if there is a coup d'etat by the people... if the people think they'd be better off being free individuals in a democratic society, so be it- or isn't that their choice? the revolution does not lead to communism... poverty occurs regardless of government...

"I don't see the Arab nations relaxing at all. " nor do I, nor do I think they should relax...

"The US also needs to cancel all contracts with US companies working in Iraq and give them to either local or neutral countries. "

there are no local companies and there are no "neutral" countries... are you seriously suggesting that we turn iraqi oil production over to the iranians?

"Otherwise the middle east will look at US conduct with great cynasism, and rightfully so."
the world (including the middle east) already looks at the us with a cynical (and envious and sometimes hateful) eye as it is...

maybe you can have a labour coup.. maybe you will not, that is an english question...

[Impenitent]

G

"More importantly, I believe the US has set a dangerous precedent. As GN has said, the purpose of the UN was to stop war, not to approve it. The US and UK crippled all attempts by other UN nations to stop the war. Not too mention pre-emptive action. It has, as was seen in Israel attacking a camp in syrian territory, founded the basis for other nations to attack nations with a 'clear and present danger'. The lessons learned after WWII are being forgotten. "

the us has set no precedent... the purpose of the un is to stop war? it does no such thing... ask israel, somalia, congo ect... the un is nothing better than a womens circle to bitch and complain about the world... it has no power... it will soon pass the way of the league of nations... the only justification anyone ever needs is power... the un doesn't have the power to do anything... sorry, but that is the ugly truth

[G. Adams]

This thread was simply meant to be different interpretation's of the situation mentioned in my original post, not an argument, so I'm gonna stop now, even though it hurts to.

[castille]

The model UN....loved those things. Ours was more informal, so we could almost run our countries along the way.

2000 I was Russia. The issue was on the embargo on Iraq. Iraq said they would conquer the Middle East if the embargo remained, so I supported Iraq and threatened to nuke anyone who tried to stop Saddam.

2001 was North Korea. Resolution was should we ban arms trade (backed by the US!). I announced, with Russian and Chinese backing, that if arms trade is banned I would invade South Korea. China threatened to nuke the US if they didn't veto the resolution, then Russia wanted a resolution to declare UN war on the US and divide North America amongst Russia, China, and North Korea.

2002 (a few months ago) was quite cool, we had a resolution on whether the US should leave Iraq. I got the US. I said the US would leave Iraq only if France takes over, and everyone argued for the next hour who should take over. The place erupted in argument, and I eventually said the US would stay in Iraq but only if our troops got to loot their treasures (nobody argued with me since it was the last few seconds before voting time, so we just agreed with the modified resolution).


Model UN was quite fun for all of us....we didn't adhere to the rules much (as you saw!).

[G. Adams]

Ah cool, I hope it goes like that at ours (if i get the candidacy). Establish a left wing block and establish an embargo on any country that refuses to settle upon an international fair trade agreement (end of subsidies, internationally agreed min wage etc). As long as I secure a majority of the security council, a majority of the G8 and as many of the oil producing nations as possible, I'll be able to pull it. If I can get Japan and China on board, I'll encourage them to call in the debts the US owes to them if the US refuses to support the agreement. As for the Iraq situation, I would support France and Germany helping out militarily as long as the Coalition members pay for all of it. Its their war afterall.

[castille]

Don't forget to wear your school blazer and tie....last time I and partner went in a casual t-shirt and jeans, and everyone was dressed up like it was a formal! (Everyone also seemed to be private school kids except us)

[G. Adams]

Screw that, I only leave my jeans and t-shirt when I'm on the pull.

[grumples_42]

Hi All-

When "push comes to shove",except for Korea and some hot spots just after that "Police Action",The UN has proved to be useless and not worth North American Money Support.

l am wondering IF The Harvard Model is considering what the over-price/underworked UN "NGO's (jk)" will do WHEN America cuts funding and others follow suit??? l just read on CTVNewsNet (Canada) that Japan is reconsidering their financial committment as well. Grumps

[G. Adams]

The UN could, and should, be made to work. But then *shock horror* the 1st world might lose a vote to the 3rd world that had to be implemented, and we can't have that now can we?

[castille]

When push comes to shove, having "lots of votes" doesn't count.

In a fight, being right doesnt mean anything.


I bet Poland complained heaps when the Nazis invaded....lot of good it did them (and even when Germany lost the war, Poland was handed over to Russia).

[JoeyNormal]

Y'know, if I had had NZ$7000 or so lying around in July last year, I would most probably now be representing New Zealand at the Hague International Model UN.

WANTED: Money. Now. Please.