ANTI-P5 Policy & Debate

Posted by on Jan 2, 2014 in Blog, Lessons, ModelUN, MUN, MUN Debate Topics, MUN-E, Uncategorized | Comments Off on ANTI-P5 Policy & Debate

ANTI-P5 Policy & Debate

Gearing up for the BIG conferences? HMUN? ILMUNC? NAIMUN!!!? If you didn’t get a P5 country, do you feel like you’re already losing? Well, in today’s world of instant information and detailed historical events, the P5 countries may have a weaker position than ever before. YOU have to be the one to call out these major players on their historical failures! It’s the MODEL UN, not the REAL UN, so there are no real consequences to calling the Russians liars, or calling the Americans arrogant. We have seen small countries like Bolivia completely upend the position of the United States by citing the corporate privatization schemes the Americans push in small countries around the world (Bolivia almost had its entire Water Supply privatized at the end of 1990’s). Sometimes you have to be clever about your position. You have to use emotion and diplomatic “outrage” at the policies of the big boys in order to cement your benevolent resolutions! Remember, in the UN, there are only a handful of “big guns” while there are more than 100 small nations who would rather support a non-P5 with a strong voice, instead of the typical powerhouse high schools who always get China or Russia. You have to be clever at how your argue against the powerful. We’re going to run down a spin of the P5 (UK, US, RF, China, & France) and show you some gaps that can be exploited for political gain! These are useful in both crisis and large committee… and they’ve been proven to work. Let’s start with the original P1, the British! The United Kingdom Why did we call the U.K. the original P1? Well, one look at this map should tell you why. The Royalty of Great Britain have reigned over most of the world. In all countries that are now “independent,” the UK still maintains corporate economic power as well as military power through key investments and allied military bases. Just because these territories are no longer called “territories” does not imply that they are sovereign, independent states. For example, the borders that were drawn around Iraq by the British after World War I were known to house mutually despondent cultural groups that still struggle against one another today. Were new borders drawn and economic policies reformed, the place may find peace… but why would any superpower want peace in a faraway land? Well, they don’t. Main Lesson of this article: Superpowers maintain power by “allowing” instability to be maintained in lesser nations. This is how the P5 operate under the mandate of the oligarchs that manage their welfare. P5 economies and their militaries are too powerful to be usurped by nationalist intentions of smaller, unstable countries. After World War 2, all of the countries between East Germany and the Ukraine became a border of chaos between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. This was done ON PURPOSE so that neither side (UK/US vs. Russia) could gain an inch. The political war in this region is still going on, the most notable recent event is the Ukrainian anti-government protests, arguments over being economically...

Read More
Twitter
MUN_Education on Twitter
Latest Tweet: @Alyssa_Milano @tedcruz You’re not an @EricRWeinstein
439 people follow MUN_Education
Twitter Pic winsterc Twitter Pic HannaSaf Twitter Pic IshritaM Twitter Pic EMELGCEY Twitter Pic advocate Twitter Pic AfricaNm Twitter Pic muncomma Twitter Pic samuelgy