I am usually against the idea of leaving school to do something optional, which is–– admittedly–– not the best state of mind. I, however, had been coerced the second time it had been presented to me. The first time, when participation in Model Congress was offered to me, I declined. I did it out of the principles previously stated, and I also believed that I was not in World Affairs Club for the events, more the space per se. The way that you don’t live at your house right now because of a sole appreciation of the square footage. World Affairs club was essentially ‘The News’ for me, and an entertaining and often thoughtful mixture of dialogue and a chaotic clash of ideas that I could get behind. I didn’t feel any “Model” event would be like this. It may suffer from over-bureaucracy or may simply just not be a smart use of my time.
To be in Model Congress, you must have a Field Trip Permission slip signed, you must pay $15, and you must write a UN Resolution whether you plan on presenting or not. You also select a country. When I chose my country, it was more the choice to have one at all: a choice that dwarfed specifics. You shouldn’t have an idea of a country when choosing, the mental process should be a step below “what am I okay with picking.” Premium countries are reserved for officers and veterans. It’s a good system for the club, though it requires some research on exactly why you would write about what you choose to write about in strict clause-formed writing. You should also note what committee your country is a part of in the Model UN system. When I picked Kazakhstan, I did not note my committee and I wrote a resolution about human rights (potentially not my committee), and the definition of the term “Protestor” after a single Google search revealed past Human Rights abuses in Kazakhstan led to the death of about 300 protestors in demonstration all labeled as terrorists. I was also called in to revise the document after I submitted it to Mr. Layton a day before I would submit it to CB South for Model UN about confusion of exactly which side of human rights I supported. Rereading the original document left me with exactly the same question. During the brief submission process, I had also not
gotten teacher signatures for the field trip and I just sort of crossed my fingers and prayed for the best. This was still a week well out from Model UN and I had already drawn out a swift process into about as long as it could be.
I arrived on the day of model UN dressed normally with a blazer jacket folded into my bag. Upon realizing every other member was dressed up, I slipped into the jacket. We sat in the lobby until about 7:30 when we got into the bus and the seats in the lobby had dried up on the little set of cushioned seats in the corner by the front clock-tower entrance. A little after sitting, I was already pressed against the side of the seat I was on, with my backpack on the floor, and it occurred to me that the Bus would be no better. Model UN attendance is restricted by the amount of people allowed in one bus, and it occurred to me we had filled every single seat–– most likely.
The Bus was just about as crowded as I predicted. I shared a seat; I didn’t really care. We had stopped by Lenape to pick up the 9th graders and it left either one, or no more seats. At about 8:00 we arrived. We sat in the Delaware Valley atrium for about 40 minutes before the event started. I sat next to a statue of an Aztec Corn God for just about the entire time, while everyone from every other school filed in. It also became clear that the weather outside was getting increasingly hot; luckily, the entire environment was climate controlled. In this time breakfast was also provided. When breakfast was presented, the line quickly led down the entire auxiliary hall next to the table; also luckily, I had already eaten and I sat quietly for the rest of the time. Sharing an armless lobby couch with an increasing number of people sitting not just on the couch, but also on the floor around it to the point where I would need to step over about 5 people to get anywhere in any direction. When we were called into the auditorium to start Model UN, we all sort of flowed in through the doors and I found a seat three rows back from the front on the very right side.
This year Model UN was hosted by CB South, and it was apparent through the authority with which they commanded the opening. There was surprisingly little apparent teacher correspondence (teacher correspondence being something that I usually think makes itself very obvious despite real-world examples) in anything other than the introduction. The Admins from CB South seemed as though they carried a great deal of pride in their work for Model UN, something which later seemed to cause some turmoil among the General Assembly. Here in the auditorium, I learned of the Model UN itinerary, something which I believed I could have learnt if I had not missed a Model UN World Affairs Club Info meeting. I learned the day would go as follows, we would meet up in our country’s council room (Economic Council, Humanitarian Council, Disarmament Council) in these council rooms we would then present our UN resolutions and if they passed a vote, they could be presented in the General Assembly and if it passed there you would be eligible to win an award. Also, during this session I became aware of the lore of Model UN and the presence of awards, but not just individual awards but awards granted to a school’s World Affair Club by criteria unknown to me. Finally, after the General Assembly, there will be a Crisis simulation and the event will cease. To me, Model UN (MUN if you will) seemed to be mostly “hurry up and wait.”
We were then dismissed to our council rooms at which point I got slightly confused about exactly which council I was part of. This was evidently a result of aforementioned tunnel vision and inattentiveness during country selection–– though, luckily, I figured resolution subject is supposed to be tied to council and I was lucky to stumble into the correct room. When I walked in, I immediately realized that there were not enough seats for me and two others. After we did get seats, we all sort of awkwardly shuffled ourselves onto the end of the closest row of seats. Both administrators from before took control of this room (Which I will be referring from here on out as the UK Admin and the Admin; where the UK admin is [self-described] passive which also comes off as [not self-described] dismissive. In slight contrast, the other Admin is well-spoken and sometimes can get very “into it.”) This is also when I am introduced to the format of MUN exchanges which I will attempt to put simply: Exchange starts with a two-minute presentation of the written resolution (a resolution is simply a list of clauses of things that “should happen”) after which two equally size groups of countries start a Pro-Con exchange (not a debate) where each speaker of both Pro and Con simply present their stance. The attention then turns to the assembly to suggest amendments to the original resolution, which are then voted on with an aye/nay vote (or a hand vote as needed). Finally, the assembly then votes on the entire resolution where a successful aye vote is a great success. Questions are also allowed and are prompted by the phrase “Point of Inquiry” which doesn’t need to be answered or “Point of Information” which are smug facts you can simply introduce into the conversation which don’t need to be responded to. After clarification, the Council Meeting begins.
It becomes obvious two presentations deep that not only will it take a mildly long hour, but it will be too short of a time to fit in everyone’s presentation. It does not help that the second resolution presented is a resolution about standardizing headlight brightness and is presented by Bahrain. This is an apparent joke resolution, and it isn’t a very clever one at that. It doesn’t help time that Admin is getting far too invested in emphasizing how out of place it is. The Pro-Con exchange stretches on by the admin’s own, interjected, points of information on exactly why the UN was founded (to keep peace, to maintain country’s sovereignty, and to promote human rights), information I find incredibly useful as the only real set of axioms for what a resolution should do. The headlight resolution also has a bonus of having a three-person Pro-Con. And for a final sort of cherry, the resolution gains an amendment before being voted entirely nay. The time drain sucks the soul from the room. During presentations another fact emerges out of the aether of conversation that most resolutions are so obvious that they become profoundly boring. It seems that this may be a product of a lack of time, nobody wants to get into the weeds of a meaningful exchange when time is so restricted and when the topic morphs from human rights to a specific clause which can be misinterpreted and therefore requires the mangling of a resolution. It also sours the selection of a lot of con speakers the obviousness of resolution; Pro-Con exchange absolutely must happen (which is fine). This is also where the eccentric North Korea speaker gains a status of being on-call for being against something after a rather funny first entrance as the con of an obvious human-right resolution. This is also where I should clarify the term “obvious” because a lot of “obvious” resolutions are logistically flawed. They also tend to be “western minded”, and I only say this because I think establishing a functioning network of drug-rehabs in Afghanistan may be a tad unrealistic. It’s the result of an incredibly “western” and successful way of thinking that the most pressing issues may be the addiction of the hapless poppy farmer and not its overall production as the necessary topic of discussion (this is opinion and you are not required to agree). “Obviousness” refers to how easy a resolution is to vote for: “Abolishing racism” no matter how convoluted and no matter how flawed the premise may be, will always sound good which gives it at least 45% of the room as support. I also notice the range of dresses in the room. People fill every range between not at all dressed up to delegates disguised as students where the most distracting outfits and those misguided in purpose. It’s not not dressed up, just not what I’d expect as a UN delegate. I sit on the comfortable end of the “try just hard enough to be there” camp which has overlap with this distracting group. I am not, surprisingly, out of place. I also watch Admin sort of shoot down a clean energy resolution for its infeasibility towards the end. This, to me, was one of the biggest crimes because while it was well intentioned and obvious, it also seemed like a weird place to draw the line and end a streak of non-disruptive resolution interactions by the Admin. Time, by now, is very short and (also toward the end) the admins get the idea to rapid fire presentations to get as many as would want to present to General Assembly, and about six people name their resolution and we faux vote.
The CB South World Affairs Club sponsor escorts us to the General Assembly and we are the last council to arrive. I am seated slightly farther back than I had been before when the General Assembly begins and the Admins take the stage behind the podium. When the Admin calls up the first presenter it becomes immediately apparent that General Assembly is far more refined. There is still a mix of seriousness ranging from smart but also strangely well thought out resolutions with serious work, to obvious college pampering resolutions which are presented with very serious and stern faces. My resolution most surely lacked the refined qualities needed to gain success here. Successful resolutions stand out with nice formatting, sub-points, real-life UN resolutions in reference, and even images. A DRC-presented resolution on the division of Israel into three states with Israel taking the coast and Palestine taking the Jordan border stands out. He has included a map in it and has designated all of inland Israel to be a “DRC Peacekeeping Mega Zone”. Good joke resolutions have a kind of subtlety and well-thought dedication to them that non-veteran joke resolutions seem to lack. The DRC resolution carries with it a subdermal conversation of how to carry out a real-life operation that a resolution like the headlight resolution lacks. Good joke resolutions do not use absurd concepts; they use minimal separation between pressing matters to make commentary. This well-thought balance gives the General Assembly the entertainment quality of good theater, it’s like watching WWE. It’s not real, but it does get compelling when Israel walking into the Pro-Con debate and says he’s actually happy with the division because “At least he gets the coast” and the con response by our own Sawyer argues that “Why not keep it simple, why not just one state?” General Assembly is veteran time, and it compels when stakes are dished out into the auditorium. An obvious resolution later, stakes are introduced when our own Steve points out on Cons of a resolution that the resolution filled with buzzwords and doesn’t actually mean much. Kiribati pleads for the necessity but, the argument is compelling: How many of the resolutions rely on little logic and just a sort of popularity to pass? Two votes are held for the resolution, and it is ultimately accepted with a Kiribati yell of “That’s why I’m the goat!” The room’s call must have been surely questionable. It’s also then I’ve realized six resolutions have had two speakers presenting.
A dual presentation begins about the immediate retreat of Hezbollah and other Middle East actions for stability. The presentation is passionate, it feels like the presenter has almost a genuine vested interest in their resolution, the secondary presenter is only speaking about every other clause in a way that resembles a history class group presentation. The second presenter is in the shadow of the primary girl who maintains her passion. I am hooked exactly when the Israel presenter through the crowd makes a point of inquiry that asks a leading question about how the forced retreat of Hezbollah would violate Lebanon’s sovereignty. At this point, it became soul-shatteringly clear great joke presenters have an impressive command over genuine World affair analysis. The point of inquiry seems to make the seemingly Freshman presenter genuinely angry as she speaks fast to compensate for the time loss diverted in telling us that Hezbollah is a recognized terrorist group and Israel strikes back through the crowd in a point of information that Hezbollah holds government seats in Lebanon. During amendments it is recommended to strike this contradiction in sovereignty from the resolution in compromise and the girl on stage is now seemingly stewing in rage. The clause is, fortunately for her sanity, kept by vote. Another resolution mentions Trump by name in a politically precarious condemnation which makes me lean forward in my seat. A point of information prompts the UK Admin to tell the pointer-maker in the front row to shut up. Politics ensue with the full brunt that follows resolutions not hidden behind the role of playing a country. The resolution’s stance is more of a full belief presented to about a hundred people. In a Con, the resolution is described as “Worldwide Socialism” as a means to lower oil prices. It is funny and also well integrated into a real political exchange that carries out. The Pro presenter looks as though she is a delegate in the way, so few achieve. An amendment to strike out the “Donald Trump clause” for relating nothing to oil is voted on and rushed to be voted nay. It’s a genuine concern given the fact that (I feel) buzzwords seem to drain the integrity of the resolution being made. A final interesting resolution is attempted for Boliva to establish a Lithium empire around the world. It’s presented by the “genuine delegate” and a less serious presenter who addresses the General Assembly as “sharks” during the ensuing Pro-Con exchange. I hear behind me people confused about the weird mixture of the use of the word “cede” and “concede”. The majority are incorrectly using “concede” during the exchanges to give up the remainder of their time. The General Assembly ends with the crisis simulation being introduced in a way that gives those behind me genuine fear of a real intruder scenario. Again, the WWE sort of value makes the introduction supremely entertaining. Our own Oliver stands up as China to defend his actions of invading Taiwan in the crisis simulation. He cites the rejection of his resolution during his disarmament council to peacefully acquire Taiwan as the main reason for the crisis. This is a quick bit of entertaining improv as the Admin on stage bashes him for denying the world of peace over the microphone. The Admin also makes a bit of black humor as he dismisses the General Assembly for lunch.
Lunch is quick, I sit on a small table in a hallway on the top floor. Lunch is provided so I’ve brought my own sandwich and a bag of pretzels. I am seated around where the ”sharks” presenter is. I hear him over my shoulder asking the girls at his school what they thought about his stunt. Not many are amused, he is obviously very proud of himself. The Hezbollah girl is here as well and she says that the UN is a joke, and that she wanted MUN to make up for what the UN has done wrong in the real world. I overhear some guys that thought Israel would be harsher. It seems that there’s an expectation regarding seriousness that disappoints some people. I ask behind me what people thought about MUN and a kid from Tohickon weighs in and say he thought it would be more serious. However, he is pleasantly surprised. We both hear the Hezbollah girl down the hall state that she believes to make MUN work they need two events, “One for people who want to be serious, and one for people who want to make joke bills.” It’s amusing. Downstairs, I am confronted by what appears to be the Junior-end of the World Affairs club, mostly by our own Noah, who make me privy to exactly what strategy West will be using to win the crisis, and also exactly what “winning the crisis means.” The crisis simulation requires each school to meet up in their native World Affairs Club and draft up a resolution which addresses key aspects of the crisis. For the crisis, China is invading Taiwan and we are expected to try make a bill which addresses the invasion, the cyber-attacks, the missile bombing, and the humanitarian crisis which follows. (I believe) We are expected to imply economic sanctions take a hard stance on China, evacuate refugees, and try to make a cease-fire. However, the draft West seems to be making address these problems by referencing a past resolution which identifies Taiwan as part of China as excuse to appease China and stabilize the Eastern Asia long-term. Other schools will draft up their own resolutions and whichever school’s is judged to be the best wins. A successful vote by the General Assembly is just a cherry on top of it.
Down the hall, I see the teacher’s lunch situation which appears to be a private room with pizza. Further down the hall, The Admins from South informed me when I walked by of the exclusivity of the room while they enjoyed the New York Times games. I am told that attendance this year is out of the norm and the double-booking of countries is not intentional to my mild shock. I am also told seriousness in the council meetings was also out of the norm. They were far less serious than anyone had anticipated, but the general assembly was fine. To me it seems people are either wildly stringent to the point of being counter-intuitive to the event, or they are some spectra of insincere to the event or are too wild. People really only seem to worry about the wild end and their tolerance to wild varies. However, the consensus on the event seems to be that it’s overall better than the last. A sentiment I have to agree with (despite my absence from previous events) solely because of the quality present in the range of presenters. It’s an interaction which is compelling and it makes me all the more excited for the big presentation of the crisis resolutions.
At 11:30, I was invited into the CB West room for drafting. Our own Padraig, Oliver, and Sarah had decided to use our own Oliver’s original resolution as a template. Technically all the schools took on their own committee to represent, and we were given the disarmament committee. This meant that the Taiwan handover resolution being drafted fit that much better. It also becomes apparent that skill of writing present not only in the original resolution but the re-draft being created. They factor Chinese history into them and use great cross references. It is also logically sound as a resolution; it offers long term peace, human aid, and reimbursement of the Taiwanese people. Who will be granted semi-autonomous government and, realistically, have little other choice. The room is also now very calm and familiar. Going from random assembly to a familiar audience is wildly reassuring in the calm present. I realize that for how “chaotic” I think World Affairs Club is at West is actually intensely productive and at times very serious. The resolution being drafted does look good. We also decompress and the Humanitarian Council changes names to the Headlights Council as we discuss the filibuster at length while serious drafting continues on the board. By the time that time is up we are all very proud and the resolution looks airtight.
The Admin and the UK Admin are behind their familiar podium. The auditorium is quiet and we are spread across the room. I am now completely rapt. CB West is seated together, and we were told to sit even closer together with the other schools to make photos of us look better. They scan through our submissions. I’ve noticed that in the transition between Word and Google Docs the formatting of the resolutions has been messed with. The AI scans our document as 55% likely to be AI. The room roars, though eyewitness assures a majority of integrity. The document is that good. It wasn’t long before the first presentation was given by South as the Economic Council. It begins with a condemnation of China and heavy economic sanctions. DRC and some others are presenting while The Admins discuss among themselves. Pro-Con pulls up our own Noah, and the Hezbollah Girl is back with a vengeance and a fully typed stance for the Pro-Con. After their part, the Admins elect to give what is more accurately the Hezbollah Pair another minute since there is two speakers. The argument stretches into the trade implications in the Middle East. When Noah begins the Cons, he–– like many good West Affair’s Club Members–– emphasizes the importance of realism. There is a clause which states the movement of Taiwanese production to the U.S. which is infeasible during a serious international crisis which in no way factors the interests of China. HG is out of breath from the speed of trying to fit in a full response. Toward the end of Pro our own Carl makes an excellent point about one clause in the resolution which aims to artificially increase the price of the U.S. dollar relative to the Chinese currency. Our own Carl points out that it is directly impossible to appreciate the U.S. dollar relative to China’s currency in a point of inquiry. The UK admin speaks up and says that he doesn’t get it and that more clarification is needed. The UK admin calls a quick vote when the amendment is suggested to strike the clause. The vote is aye to strike the clause, but The Admins vote nay over the microphone. It’s vicious now. The overall resolution from South is voted nay after a hand vote. We start clapping. East is now up to present.
East’s resolution talks about Gaza during the Chinese crisis. Their aim seems to be to solve every humanitarian crisis at once. They have drafted up a complex system of humanitarian protected corridors across the globe in which to transport refugees out and aid in. They say Nigeria, Algeria, and Canada will be the ones to lead the peace with Qatar and France to help. It’s a strategy in which by attacking the countries supporting they can claim “well, they already agreed to help and are fully on board” as all of the countries mentioned are within the team. East has a great network of strategies to ensure their success, and their main success is the inoffensiveness of their resolution. At this point, I cannot imagine Model Congress. What would the stakes be? I imagine it would be as petty as a thousand bills to regulate headlights. The Pro-Con debate starts with confusion that slows debate. It seems intentional. The Pro speakers seem to be from East all with written responses to be read aloud, they want to make it clear that the resolution has no effect on the war and is solely for humanitarian aid. The Cons refute this idealistic sentiment with the fact that without action regarding China the war will only escalate, and humanitarian aid will only get harder. Going into amendments, it becomes ever more obvious that East is going for a strategy of in-offense. By distancing themselves from the war, they defy the purpose of the activity sure, but they also make it so much easier to agree. You don’t have to take a complicated stance to want humanitarian aid. When the first amendment is presented, it is presented by South as means to buttress the East’s resolution. It clarifies a problem with how they’ve worded what it means to be neutral. They do not repeat the amendment over the microphone and go straight to vote. The UK Admin takes this time to quickly address CB West inquiries with the fact that we just don’t understand what’s happening. It’s patronizing now. I imagine there’s hypnotic spirals in my eyes at this point. There are about twenty other petty strategies in wording that I can only regard as smart by the presenters. A quick aye vote secures the seriousness of the East presentation.
West is up next with our own Oliver electing to not speak in the presentation just re-assuredly stand behind the presenters (Our own Padraig and our own Sarah). It’s sit and stand to let people through like prayer in a church service minus the kneeling. The Admins looks down as we begin to present. Our presenters are stacked with both India and China on the stage; we cover all bases in our writing as well. The writing is a pristine and firm end to the conflict and a handing-over of Taiwan which we argue would stabilize the region. The same argument which still looks just as pristine in front of the General Assembly. After the presentation CB West claps. A point of information brings up a survey in which the Taiwanese came to a census of strong disagreement with joining into the PRC. A second point of information from the crowd calls the last survey outdated. The presenters agree and even with the Taiwanese disagreeing, “they may have changed their opinions now, given the circumstances.” Pro-Con begins with the Con speaker forgetting to introduce themselves; everyone seems to be absorbed in it. The speaking is fast and claims the “One Country, Two Systems” China would use would most likely not work. She also claims there is no humanitarian aid allowed in our resolution, which is false. All the cons seem to be attacking already defended positions while the Pros argue for a country’s personal interests. It’s a sign that the Assembly is uncomfortable with handing over Taiwan. During the Pro-Con the DRC brings up protests in Hong Kong. It’s overshadowed by the Con mentioning climate change. Our own Oliver speaks up to point out that all of the Con’s positions were already defended. There is not claim of an invasion of Taiwan being a sovereignty problem because of the resolution which already denies Taiwan as the legitimate China (Resolution 2758 XXVI). One amendment is presented which is struck down. Another amendment tries to remove the humanitarian aid clause. A true and counted hand vote is called. The Admins count 54-50 nay. The resolution does not pass, war in Taiwan will continue and MUN is complete.
By teacher decision CB East had won MUN. Disappointment swept throughout the CB West stands after a performance after which the only expectation could’ve been absolute and resounding success. Apparently, we were judged harshly as reigning champs. That fact was known to us. Our own Padraig won a personal award for his own resolution. Then, by 2:00 we were on the bus, I couldn’t help but feel entirely satisfied by MUN. I wrote in the notes for this article, “Overall I’m optimistic, the seniors lost gives everything an absent feeling, you can’t be mad at the last Model UN.” I’m happy I got to see the true final extension of the World Affairs Club. I cannot predict the quality of 2027 MUN, but I can be happy to report the overall success of an experience that 2026 MUN was. Aside from mild waiting, there was not a single point where the experience felt dry or lacked something it needed. It’s something really compelling to immerse yourself in; I recommend it. It was full, exciting, and absolute.
