file photo

Last week the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agreed to forfeit all its nuclear capabilities to China in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions.

Of course, this did not happen in real life, but rather at the 15th Annual American Model United Nations conference in Chicago.

The conference, which draws about 1,200 students from around the world each year, provides participating schools the opportunity to represent one of the 191 U.N. member states. UW-Eau Claire students represented the Russian Federation this year.

As a member of the Eau Claire Model U.N. Club, I sat on the political and security committee last week at the conference. While listening to a representative of Paraguay debate the non-proliferation of nukes with Rwanda, I couldn’t help but wonder what we were really accomplishing during our four-day stint as mock international delegates.

At the conference, delegates are required to act in character, making arguments and debating as the country they’re representing would. However, the delegates from North Korea, the United States and China were never called out of character even though the “Chicago Act” was far beyond improbable.

If finding peaceful means to ongoing conflicts is out of character, how legitimate can the real United Nations be?

The legitimacy of the United Nations is solely dependent on member states. The body can only be as influential as countries allow it to be. The U.N. is based on agreements, as countries are not bound by international laws.

For example, take the words “No nation can build a safer, better world alone.” They don’t come from the United Nations charter, but rather from the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy.

Multilateralism is a concept enhanced by the U.N. and embraced by the international community, including the United States (at least in times of peace). But, as we’ve seen in recent years, the concept isn’t always applied in a realistic setting. Most countries act both unilaterally and multilaterally at times. States will act unilaterally in conflict concerning national security or when the fighting is occurring in their backyard. Multilateralism is reserved for the pursuit of global causes, as long as those causes don’t interfere with individual state’s sovereignty.

During the conference, the Russian Federation agreed with six other nuclear powers to reduce weapons by 15 percent over the course of 20 years. While the United States was not called out of character, nor were North Korea or China for the Chicago Act, the disarmament agreement caused the mock Secretary General to reprimand the United States and Israel.

Apparently he thought it was not out of character for China to disarm North Korea, but the United States agreeing to arms reductions was unrealistic. Either way, students at the conference were more willing than the real United Nations to act multilaterally for the betterment of the international community.

One strength of the real United Nations lies in the equality of the General Assembly. Each country, no matter what their military capabilities or gross domestic product, is given one vote and an equal opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns, with the exception of observer states.

Working within the United Nations also gives countries an advantage when engaging in conflict abroad. For example, during the first Gulf War, the United States used what scholar Joseph Nye calls “soft power” – the ability to persuade fellow members to help with the U.S. agenda. The “hard power” of the United States – military action – will be more successful with international support.

When working within the United Nations, nations are more likely to come to each other’s aid not only in times of crisis but also when acting rationally for individual gains.

Concerning the war in Iraq, it is clear the United States is much better at winning wars than constructing peace. The United Nations is an invaluable and unused resource the United States should turn to for help in securing peace for the Iraqi people.

The final reason the United Nations plays an important role in the international community is it provides a sense of global order. Being the preeminent institution of global discussion and debate, the United Nations allows member states to bring problems to the international table for potential solutions in an organized fashion. Delegates from Israel and Palestine sit together in the same room, both given the opportunity to voice their beliefs before the body of the General Assembly.

While sitting in the conference room in Chicago with my fellow bright-eyed and eager mock delegates, I thought about all these things and came to the conclusion that the United Nations is still legitimate today. With 1,200 young people traveling hours to sit in a room and debate global issues for 12 hours a day, the future for the institution looks encouraging.

Perhaps our accomplishments in Chicago can be attributed to optimism, but maybe that’s exactly what the real United Nations needs right about now.