SHS Model UN 2013

A MODEL UN HOW
TO
HOW TO FACE YOUR FEARS in MODEL UN
There are many things that intimidate new delegates knowing what to say in a speech or during
caucus, making points or motions for the first time, understanding what a new term means, etc.
Learn how to face your fear in Model UN by following these tips:
1. Prepare a research binder. Youll feel better in committee knowing that your research is at
your fingertips. A ready-to-access research binder is a life-saver in case you get lost when
different topics, acronyms, agencies, and previous solutions are mentioned.
2. Frame your topics and speeches. In MUN, you have 72 hours or less to solve the worlds
most important and complicated problems. This is a challenge, but dont let it overwhelm you;
instead, make it manageable. Break down your topic into smaller issues. Choose the ones that
matter most to your country or position. Match solutions to those issues.
3. Write out your first speech. Your first speech is the committees first impression of you. Its
scary because youre getting up in front of people youve never met who are going to judge you.
But the first speech is the easiest to prepare for because you can write it out ahead of time. Try it
youll find that its easier to speak again after youve made a strong first speech. And once
youve learned how to frame your topic, you will easily learn how to frame your speech
4. Focus on one idea at a time. Over the course of a conference, your committee will discuss
many different problems and solutions. Speeches that try to cover too many ideas at the same
time are incoherent. Dont be confused by the vast number of things to talk about in a speech;
instead, focus on one idea at a time. This makes it easier for you to make speeches and for your
audience to understand you. Youll also be faster at crafting comments and more active in
moderated caucus. Focusing on one idea helps you overcome an important public speaking fear
knowing what to say in a speech.
5. Learn the different stages of committee. When youre starting out, committee seems like
chaos. Theres so much going on and things seem to happen randomly, which might make you
feel anxious or uncertain. But you can overcome these feelings by learning the different stages of
committee. Its more than knowing the rules or motions its about knowing what to do and
when to do it. Be aware of what stage the committee is in, whether its making speeches, forming
alliances, or writing resolutions. Once you realize that theres a certain flow to committee, the
chaos you felt at first will turn into order. Learn more about the five stages of committee.
Most importantly, ask questions when you dont understand something dont be shy. If youre
unsure of whats going on in committee or a word that someone used, raise a Point of Inquiry
and ask your question. Its a simple thing to do yet so hard most people dont want to admit
1

SHS Model UN 2013

that they dont know something. But asking questions is the first step to facing your fear in MUN
and becoming a better delegate.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 1: An Overview

Okay, Im going to write a series of essays on what I think it takes to win Best Delegate. This is
not a definitive guide; its more of a start to a conversation. I would love to know what other
people think, so please post comments, or heck, even write your own essay, e-mail it to me, and
Ill post it.
So let me start by claiming that there is no definitive guide to winning best delegate. Every
conference, every chair, every delegate differs. Some conferences value realism and sticking to
your country policy no matter what; other conferences prize diplomacy and compromise in order
to reach a solution. Chairs are inherently subjective in deciding who should win Best Delegate;
some are hardcore MUNers who know what to look for, whereas others get duped by that
backstabbing delegate who stole the committees ideas and passed them off as his own. And what
works for you in one conference may not in the next depending on the quality of the other
delegates. For one conference, youre the most experienced delegate in a huge General Assembly
committee; at the next conference, youre sitting on a 15-person crisis cabinet full of head
delegates.
Given these dynamics, what can be said with regard to winning best delegate, and winning it
consistently? Theres still a lot to be said, actually. In fact, it all starts with a prayer:
God grant us
Serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
Courage to change the things we can,
and Wisdom to know the difference.
- The Serenity Prayer, as used in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
The dynamics I described above that differ from conference to conference are things that
ironicallyyou cannot change. But what you can change is your probability for winning Best
Delegate, which depends on your actions and choices before and during the conference. Your
strategy for winning best delegate, then, is to maximize your probability of success despite your
circumstances.
How? That is what this series of essays is dedicated to. Broadly speaking, I think maximizing
your probability of success comes down to two objectives: 1) actually being a leader in
committee and 2) ensuring that the chair knows you are a leader in committee. Leadership is the
constant in MUN conferences; no matter the conference philosophy, the chair, or the other
delegates, groups need leaders, and a committee is essentially a group looking for a leader. Be
that leader.
So of course those two broad objectives can themselves be broken up into smaller stratagems,
and thats how I want to structure these essays. As best I can, and consistent with the
2

SHS Model UN 2013

assumptions that Ive laid out above, Ill try to come up with a step-by-step guide of how to win
Best Delegate.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 3: Making It Up

In my last post, I wrote about choosing your committee. Now that youve picked your
committee, either the one you want to specialize in or just for this upcoming conference, do
enough research and preparation to give yourself the best shot at winning Best Delegate.
But maybe youre asking: why? Perhaps youve been told, MUN is BS. This implies that
winning doesnt require research. And maybe youve seen a friend go into committee having
read nothing but the topic paperif thatand win Best Delegate.
Maybe he won on his personality and charisma. Perhaps everyone in committee liked him and he
seemed knowledgeable at the same time, so he won an award. And bravo to him; he can start his
own website.
But I bet that he did more research than you think. I dont mean he secretly read UN resolutions
on the bus when you werent looking. I mean that good delegates tend to follow current events,
watch the news, and read newspapers, journals, and magazines. Following current events can
teach you more than reading any topic paper or UN resolution. So while it seems that your friend
is making it all up, hes actually drawing upon a wealth of knowledge and applying it to his
topic. Thats not BS; thats great.
Regardless, this is still not a consistent way to win. Your friend might win Best after Best until he
comes up against someone whos just as funny but actually knows what hes talking about. Your
friends competitive advantage is gone; the other guy will call him out on whatever he says.
But dont forget that the strategy we laid out is to maximize your probability of winning given
your circumstances. You cant choose the quality of the other delegates in your committee. They
might or might not be funnier or smarter than you. But all things being equal, someone who does
some research will probably do better than someone who doesnt at all.
Clearly, you should invest some time in research prior to the conference. The trick is to research
only as much as necessary so that a) you dont waste time and b) you dont look like a know-itall. Plus, research is a skill that MUN can help you develop and will actually help you later in
life. So, do some.
Despite that, heres the rub: we all make it up anyway. Were students and were roleplaying; of
course we dont know everything. In fact, the guy who pretends he does will most likely not win.
No matter how much research you do, you wont know as much as the guy whos actually paid to
sit in the General Assembly Hall. At some point, you have to make inferences, i.e. make up
information based on what you do know. Knowing how to do that is also a crucial skill. But
dont let that be your only one.
So, do your research. The only reason not to is laziness. Dont tell me you dont have time; make
some. And in my next post, Ill lay out the most efficient way to research so you dont waste any.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 4: Research the Conference

In my last post, I argued that you should do research. Now, heres how to do it.
3

SHS Model UN 2013

There are four areas of research: conference, committee, topic, and country / position. In this
next series of posts, I will define these terms and suggest how to research them.
By conference, I mean the conferences philosophy, the characteristics it values in delegates, and
the kind of people who staff it, particularly your chair. I also mean the conferences reputation; is
it a laidback conference that doesnt care much for parliamentary procedure, or is it a very strict
one?
It may seem weird that I list this as a part of your research, and truthfully, it requires the least
amount of your time. But if you want to win Best Delegate, shouldnt you know what the
conference and, consequently, your chair are looking for?
Think of it this way: you wouldnt walk into a job interview without thinking about how your
skills suit you for the position and what the company values. And just like an interviewer, your
chair judges you not just on skill, but style.
As a personal example, I was the chair of the Security Council at a major conference last year.
The delegate representing the United States in my committee was good but abrasive. His skills
were solid; he was on policy, spoke well, and had a lot of good ideas. But he was too aggressive;
he included himself on every resolution and alienated the other delegates.
At one point, I spoke with his advisor. Surprisingly, she said that hes actually a very quiet
student. But he was acting this way because thats what his research showed him. The US is
apparently aggressive in international negotiations. And at the time, John Bolton was the US
Ambassador to the UN.
So my dais and I faced a dilemma: should we give him an award? I would normally not award
abrasive delegates, but his actions were grounded in solid research; he was so on policy that he
was roleplaying the actual ambassador.
To decide, we read the conferences awards policy as printed in the conference guide. It clearly
stated that the conference valued diplomacy above all. Only the most diplomatic delegates
should receive awards.
So although this delegate had done his research so well he was even roleplaying the actual
ambassador, he neglected to research one thing: the conference itself. Based on that, we did not
give him an award.
There are two primary ways to go about researching the conference. The first is through
impressions. Check out the conference website, topic paper, and conference guide. Is it
professional or sloppy? Well-written? Arrogant?
In particular, look for an awards policy. Does the conference value idealism, i.e. diplomacy
above all, or realism, i.e. being on policy no matter what? Is it strict on parliamentary procedure?
Admittedly, these are minor things, and again, you should not spend a lot of time analyzing them.
But keeping them in mind will help you get an impression of the conference and what to expect
in committee.
The second way is through reputation. Speak with the older members of your MUN team, your
friends at the hosting school, or even people you know who are organizing the conference. Is the
conference known for being tough or laidback? Is it a very prestigious conference, meaning it
will be highly competitive, or is it a smaller conference? It its MUN team known for being

SHS Model UN 2013

aggressive or diplomatic? Its members will most likely be your chairs and they most likely value
the styles that reflect their own. Every school has a reputation: know theirs and yours.
Finally, let me clarify that I am not telling you to change what kind of delegate you are simply
based on what the conference wants. Just like in an interview, yes, you want to prove you have
the skills and values the company is looking for, but if that means being fake or lying, then
people will see right through you.
Same thing at an MUN conference. If the conference values aggression, and winning Best
Delegate means backstabbing another delegate, then dont do it. Winning is not worth changing
who you are as a person.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 5: Research Your Topic

Heres a quick and dirty 4-step guide to researching your topic:
1. Develop an overall understanding of the topic.
Start with the topic paper, but Wikipedia is probably your best source of information. It is
generally comprehensive, fact-checked, and updated.
Break up the topic into smaller issues to make it easier to understand.
Also know the players: whos most affected by the topic and who has the most impact on the
topic.
Heres a test: if you had to sum up your topic in one sentence, what would you say?
2. Know past actions.
Go to the committee website and look for the most important resolutions, typically those
mentioned in the topic paper and on Wikipedia. Heck, just print out all resolutions that have
anything to do with the topic.
Realize that your committee is not the only body working on this topic; other committees and
countries have probably taken action as well. Find out the most important actions taken with
regard to your topic and who undertook them.
Find or develop a timeline of important events and major actions taken on the topic. The BBC
generally has good ones.
3. Understand the current situation.
Do a search on Yahoo! News and Google News. Both websites search printed news, online news,
and even blogs.
As with any piece of research, however, be mindful of your sources. Great local newspapers such
as the Orange County Register wont have the same quality of coverage as the New York
Timesor Washington Post. It might just be better to go to the wires, or syndicated news sources,
such as the Associated Press. And try to read international news such as the BBC in addition to
United States-based sources.
4. Determine future outlook.
Look for predictions and trends indicating where your topic is going. Is the situation improving
or deteriorating? Are the actions being taken effective or inhibitive?
Put another way, youre looking for critiques of the current situation and recommendations for
what to do in the future.
5

SHS Model UN 2013

Editorials offer some pretty basic critiques. Better yet are papers provided by think tanks, such
as RAND.
Be aware of bias, however. As with any website or source that you use, look out for a slant on the
story or a political agenda.
If you canor more importantly, if you have the time and mental staminatry looking for
academic papers on the topic. Try Google Scholar or, even better, go to your library or local
university. Academics probably offer the most depth of any source, but they do get pretty dry and
complicated.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 6: Research Your Country

There are two things you want to research about your country: the basics and the relevant. First,
develop a holistic impression of your country by collecting general information. Then, determine
what specific actions your country has taken on the topic, particularly policies and positions.
Basic information about your country may not be crucial to what you do in committee, but it is
so elementary to your role as an ambassador that it should not be neglected. Knowing basic
information will also save you from embarrassment if someone asks you a question like Where
is your country? and How large is your population?
To find basic information on your country, start with the CIA World Factbook. It was the first
resource I ever used for MUN research and I still use it. Theres a lot of information on every
country, but personally I look for a few things in particular:
1. Geography Examine the map. Figure out where your country actually is and determine your
neighbors.
2. History Read the introduction, which concisely gives you some idea of your countrys
history.
3. Population Under the section entitled People, note population size.
4. Trade Partners Under Economy, look at exports and imports. This may seem random, but
trade partner generally equals ally, meaning these are the delegates you should meet during the
first unmoderated caucus.
Each page contains a bunch of facts, so why did I choose these in particular? Honestly, it comes
down to personal preference. Knowing 1, 2, and 3 gives me a good feel of the country Im
representing. Someone else, however, might want to know more about their countrys
government and politics. Ill expand on this concept later, but you should research as much as
you need to feel comfortable representing your country.
There are a bunch of websites out there on a countrys background information. I used to go to
CountryReports.org for more detailed information. I even went to Human Rights Watch for more
background information because their reports cover many subjects. Having this extra information
on hand made me feel very knowledgeable about my country, but I found that it hardly ever
came up, so I stopped. Again, do what you need to do to feel comfortable.

SHS Model UN 2013

After researching background information on your country, look up current events. Youre not
looking for anything in particular; you just want to know whats going on in the country youre
supposed to be representing.
By far, the best website for this is Yahoo! News Full Coverage. Go to Google (ironically) and
type yahoo news full coverage [country name] to find your page. These Full Coverage pages
feature links to news stories, wire stories, articles, and editorials, not to mention government
websites and other popular independent sources.
When youre done with basic information, then its time to move onto the real meat of your
research, the information about your country that is most relevant to your topic.
Your goal is find primary sources that lay out your countrys policy, programs, and past actions
related to the issue. Primary sources, like speeches or government websites, are particularly
important because no one can rightfully accuse you of going off policy if you are directly
quoting your government.
If a lack of information exists on your country, though, then you may need to rely on secondary
sources, such as magazines and think tanks. The upside is that most likely no one will call you
out in committee because they wont know anything either. In this case, you have more leeway to
make inferences and be flexible in what you say and the policies you advocate.
Start with your governments website and look for speeches from your head of state (President or
Prime Minister) relating to the topic. If that doesnt work, look for speeches by other government
officials, or parts of the government website devoted to your topic. Your Ministry of Foreign
Affairs website might be more helpful than the general government website. And be mindful of
dates; quoting your government directly wont do you any good if the information is outdated.
Dont be dismayed if you cant find this information easily. More often than not, you will be hard
pressed to find something ideal; not all governments update their websites. In reality, your
government might not even care about the topic youre discussing. It might just advocate a
certain policy in order to avoid possible embarrassment.
You, however, are better than that; youre an MUNer. And, youre trying to win Best Delegate!
So if policy information is lacking, you need to start making it up. Go back through your
research on the topic itself and your countrys background information. You need to put two and
two together and figure out what your country believes.
The key to doing so is determining your national interests. What is important to your country?
Broadly speaking, it is usually security and economy. How will international action on the topic
impact those interests? Answering these questions will help you figure out your policy;
governments pursue their interests. Heck, thats just human nature (which is the foundation for
the realist school of political thought).
Trade partners and regional organizations are huge hints. If your country depends heavily on
trade with, say, the US, then most likely it will not adopt policies contrary to American interests
7

SHS Model UN 2013

unless it really needs to. In this case, figure out US policy on the topic, and adopt, or amend it, as
your own. If your country is part of the African Union and the topic affects the entire African
continent, then look up AU policy on the topic. This is why caucus blocs and alliances exist;
mutual interests bring different countries together.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 7: Framing

This post is about a very helpful analytical tool you can use when making speeches.
In an MUN context, the concept of framing refers to framing the debate, i.e. breaking down
one large, complicated topic into many smaller, simpler issues. Framing can help you structure
your speeches and resolutions, and more importantly, it can help you look like a leader.
My first speech for any topic is typically a framing speech. For example, at this years Harvard
National MUN Conference (HNMUN), I debated Security Council Reform as the representative
of the United Kingdom to the Security Council. For my very first speech, I said something
similar to the following:
Thank you, honorable Chair, and good evening, fellow delegates. Now, the United Kingdom
views the larger topic of Security Council Reform as comprising three smaller issues. First,
membership expansion; second, the veto; third, working practices.
Regarding membership, the United Kingdom supports the G4 plan, which gives permanent nonveto seats to Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil. Moreover, we are flexible regarding the number
of non-permanent seats to be added.
Regarding the veto, the United Kingdom believes that any conversation on this issue will
deadlock progress on actual reform. The members of this committee know that the Permanent 5
will not give up or grant to others their veto power.
And regarding working practices, the United Kingdom wants to incorporate informal practices
into the formal rules of procedure, particularly the Arria Formula. We think that non-state actors
should be allowed to address this body.
That is the United Kingdoms position on membership expansion, the veto, and working
practices. Thank you very much, and we look forward to working with all of you this weekend.
See how I broke down the massively complicated topic of Security Council reform into more
easily digestible issues? Thats framing. There may be countless other things that could be
considered issues, but Im not trying to break up the topic into every single issue. Im simply
trying to emphasize the most important ones. Essentially, framing is about coming up with a
structure. In a speech, framing helps both the speaker and the listener.
A cohesive structure helps the speaker stay within the typical one minute time limit. It also helps
him look like he knows what hes talking about. Someone who knows how to analyze a topic, i.e.
breaking up one big thing into many smaller things, looks like theyve done their research. And,
framing helps the speaker transition from point to point and improvise parts of their speech.
8

SHS Model UN 2013

For my speech above, I basically wrote down three words on a notepad: Membership, Veto,
Practices. I knew that I wanted to outline my countrys position, and I remembered a bunch of
stuff from my research, but for the most part, I improvised a minute-long speech based on these
three words. See my post on Making It Up.
A logical structure helps the listener follow what youre saying, which also means that theyre
more likely to listen. Have you ever fallen asleep listening to another delegate drone on and on?
You probably thought of this other delegates speech as boring. There are likely 3 three reasons
for this: 1) you didnt care anyway, 2) you didnt like listening to the other delegate, i.e. he or she
had poor delivery, or 3) you couldnt follow what theyre saying, i.e. the speech lacked structure.
Look at it the other way. After a boring speech, have you ever woken up because a delegate gave
a great speech? You probably thought of this delegates speech as exciting, at least somewhat.
Again, there are likely 3 reasons for this: 1) you started to care about what he or she was saying,
2) you liked what you were hearing, i.e. the speaker had excellent delivery, or 3) you understood
what theyre saying, i.e. the speech had a logical structure.
In short, you want to be the second speaker. Assuming your audience cares, then you want
excellent delivery and interesting things to say. Having a structure helps you say interesting
things.
Most importantly, framing can help you look like a leader. The committee cant find solutions if
it doesnt know the problems. By breaking up the larger topic into smaller issues, you are
showing the committee the problems, which implies that you can lead the committee towards the
solutions.
Framing helps delegates and dais staff remember you. If your frame sticks, i.e. people like the
way you broke up the topic, then other delegates will say something like, Just like the United
Kingdom said, we have three issues to deal with: membership, veto, and practices
Of course, different delegates can present different frames. This is an advanced MUN concept,
but the strongest frame will win out, meaning that the committee will collectively like one
delegates frame better than those of other delegates. In another post, I can write about
dismantling other frames. But for more information, you can read George Lakoffs book Dont
Think of an Elephant! or the Wikipedia page on framing (social sciences).
Framing is most useful for speeches, but it can also be used in resolutions. A resolution can
comprise any number of operative clauses. If you have 10+ of them, then you need some way in
which to organize them. How to do so? Frame it. Ill discuss this in a separate post on resolution
writing.
In closing, think of framing as coming up with a list. What are your 3 favorite places in the
world? Whatre your Top 10 Favorite Movies? Whos in your Fave 5? However you form these
lists from the myriad number of places, movies, and friend youve knownthats framing.

How to Win Best Delegate, Part 8: Framing Your Topic

9

SHS Model UN 2013

Earlier this week, I was coaching for a Bay Area high school in preparation for the UC Davis
Model United Nations Conference, and the students asked a good question: how do we go about
researching our topic when the background guide or topic synopsis has not been posted yet? If
you want to be the Best Delegate, you cannot wait for the chair to post the guide (or rely on
background guides that may not be written with a clear framework of issues to address). The
procrastination-busting technique that I recommend you take the initiative to use is Framing Your
Topic. Heres how the three-part process works:
First, you frame your topic. Brainstorm six to ten different sub-issues that you might encounter
regarding this topic. If you have trouble brainstorming, think of sub-issues categorically:
political, economic, social, financial, humanitarian, environmental, security, etc.
Next, list adjacent to each sub-issue in your framework the past actions that have been taken to
resolve that sub-issue as well as possible solutions that your country has proposed or would like
to propose.
Finally, you select the three most salient sub-issues to your country. These will become the three
key points you will use when you Frame Your Speech and will be central to your position paper
and draft resolution. You will want to conduct more research into them so you can become the
subject matter expert on them when they are debated at the conference. Of course, you will also
want to be familiar with the other points that you have framed because you can include them in
your resolutions, and some of these will be the key points for other delegates and you will want
to be knowledgeable enough to collaborate with them on these sub-issues.
Here are two examples of UC Davis topics that the students I was working with brainstormed on
the spot:
Topic: Nuclear Proliferation
1. Technology transfer (by governments and individuals)
2. Government Policies toward nuclear weapons
3. Security (of stockpiles, facilities, etc.)
4. Internal strife (e.g. Pakistan)
5. Disarmament of stockpiles
6. Economic arguments behind proliferation
7. Security/alliance factors behind proliferation
8. Terrorism
Topic: Preservation of Indigenous Languages
1. Suppression by governments
2. Language and cultural dominance
3. Official language policy
4. Grassroots/local efforts in preservation
5. Education & research
6. Incentives for indigenous language abilities
These will need to be filled in with past actions and proposed solutions, but that requires research
of your topic and an understanding of your country policy. A filled-in sub-issue will look like
this:
Sub-Issue > Past Actions > Proposed Solution
10

SHS Model UN 2013

Note that the above frameworks are comprehensive but not complete. You could probably
brainstorm a few more sub-issues for each. More important, when the background guide or topic
synopsis gets posted, make sure you read to understand what sub-issues your Chair wants the
committee to address and adjust your framework accordingly.
If you have trouble with framing, I would suggest getting your entire class or club do it for the
topic. I found that brainstorming as a group produced much more comprehensive lists of subissues than individually trying to dissect your topic.

Pushers and Leaders, Part 1: How to Handle Power Delegates in Caucus

Standing around with other people during unmoderated caucus, do you ever notice those
delegates who purposefully try to dominate the conversation? They talk as much as they can,
shout down anyone else who tries to speak, and they become even more annoying when the chair
walks nearby. These delegates think that talking a lot scores them points with the chair, earns
them a leadership role amongst their fellow delegates, and ultimately will help them win an
award.
A bad chair, who doesnt actually know whats going on in committee, and only sees one person
talking, may think that this delegate is in control. But in reality, these power delegates just
alienate everyone else and earn no respect from fellow delegates. They try so hard to win by
dominating everyone else and write the resolution on their own, when most of the time, they just
end up in a caucus bloc with other power delegates who are ironically thinking the same thing.
They believe theyre leading the caucus and winning the committee, but they actually prevent
any real work from getting done.
Heres a quick tip for handling a power delegate that isolates them, lets other people speak, and
makes you look good in the process. (Note that this applies moreso to the beginning of a
conference when everyone is still trying to get to know one another, it still has general
applications)
Let the power delegate speak for a little bit and let him make his point, listening politely like you
would for any other person. As soon as hes done with his point, hell most likely to attempt to
keep rambling on and make additional incoherent points without listening to other people. This is
his attempt to assert dominance. Power delegate: The US believes we should send in troops.
And then hold elections. And then start an education program. Education, education, education,
blah blah blah
But before he can launch into a one-man show that wastes everyone elses time, cut him offby
asking him a question. (Huh? Wont this make talk more? Keep reading) Direct it specifically
at him; ask him to rephrase or clarify something he said. He might not expect this; hes most
likely used to just plowing ahead. But hell most likely take this as an opportunity to keep
talking; you asked him a question, after all. You: Excuse me, US, but what kind of education
program did you have in mind?
As soon as hes done with his response, and before he can launch into a new, unrelated point,
direct a new question at someone else in the caucus bloc. You can ask this other person if he
11

SHS Model UN 2013

agrees with the power delegate. Or, you can ask a rhetorical question to another delegate, in
order to let this other delegate speak. You: Ghana, didnt you have a similar idea about an
education program?
Now youre letting this other delegate speak. As long as this delegate is making his point, then
the power delegate cant just cut him off without obviously looking rude, or more obviously rude
than he was before. Once this delegate finishes his point, and before the power delegate can jump
in, direct another related question at another delegate. You: India, I think you have this
particular education program in your country, dont you?
Soon, youve asked everyone in the caucus bloc a question, and given everyone a chance to
speak. Assuming theres time left in the committeeand there might not be, which is the risk to
this techniquenow its your time to speak. And you can either use this time to give your
countrys position, or, even better, use it to start writing the resolution. You: Well, I think we all
agree that education should be part of the resolution. I think everyone likes this part of Indias
program, and this part of Ghanas idea. Lets write them down. Booyahnow youre the author
of the resolution.
This tactic may seem counter-intuitive, but think of it this way. If you are the one asking and
directing questions, chances are that the delegates speaking are talking directly to you. This
makes you look like a leader. On top of that, you are allowing other people to speak and voice
their ideas; you are connecting the people in the caucus bloc to one another. And because you are
the driving force behind this connection, you really are the leader. And this, of course, is the
signature characteristic of a true best delegate: leadership.
Theres a lot more nuance to this technique, like if everyone doesnt agree on a particular issue,
or if the topic is too broad to cover in a couple caucus sessions, or if everyone in the group is a
power delegate (in which case you probably should just find another caucus bloc). And there are
also certain risks involved. As already mentioned, this tactic takes time to execute. But more
importantly, a bad chair only sees the talkers, not the listeners. So if you have a bad chair, then
this technique may not make you immediately noticeable, although in the long run, if it helps you
win friends and allies who will help and promote you because you are not a power delegate, i.e. a
jerk, then it will help you.
And in a way, this technique is somewhat ironic. The power delegate thinks that he can control
the caucus by talking. The best delegate, on other hand, actually control the caucus by listening.
In most social situations, including MUN committees, people think that the person speaking is in
control. And if you let him speak, he is. But the person speaking is entirely dependent on the
people who are listening. Therefore, it is the delegate who chooses to whom people will listen
by directing questions and connecting people to one anotherthat truly controls the debate.

Pushers and Leaders, Part 2: How to Veto the Power Delegate in

your Resolution Bloc
One of the best ways to handle a power delegate during an unmoderated caucus is to
diplomatically moderate the unmoderated caucus bloc and force the power delegate to listen
rather than speak. Assuming that you have established yourself as the respectful and respected
12

SHS Model UN 2013

caucus bloc leader and are able to empower the rest of the bloc to participate with you, this
technique may force the power delegate to seek another caucus bloc because he/she might not be
able to dominate the discussion and take leadership in the resolution-writing process.
However, the power delegate may decide to join the caucus bloc that you are leading anyway and
become a sponsor. This can become a problem if the power delegate continually attempts to
assert control of the bloc and ownership of the resolution; the power delegate wants to be seen as
the leader of the bloc. What often transpires next is that after some back-and-forth debate over
wording between you and the power delegate in order to exercise ownership over different
clauses, the bloc will generally come to an agreement on a draft resolution and submit it. Then,
in order to gain additional ownership of the draft resolution, the power delegate will insert a
bunch of operatives that he/she had been withholding or had overheard in committee, and having
been exhausted from the debate earlier or believing that these amendments will gain votes, the
rest of the bloc will just go along with it and sign onto them as friendly amendments. The bloc
(and you) will increasingly lose control as your agreement becomes more of a formality than a
negotiation in the power delegates rise in ownership of the draft resolution.
The best delegate though, knows how to turn a rule into a strategy. The rule is, in order for an
amendment to be considered friendly, all sponsors must agree. Conversely (and this is often left
unexplained), it also means that if any one sponsor disagrees, the amendment becomes
unfriendly and is subject to voting by the committee, which is a situation the power delegate
would rather not face due to the potential for rejection. Therefore, at any point, you can disagree
and essentially veto the power delegate from asserting control over your draft resolution. If your
disagreement is considerate to your loyal bloc allies and principled (on policy), you will have
striped the power delegate of his/her source of power, the agreeing but exhausted group of
sponsors.
This technique can be especially devasting to a power delegate who is trying to push you or an
ally off formal caucus representation. Power delegates from opposing blocs may decide to merge
resolutions to not only make it seem as if they were strong negotiators who could command a
majority vote to pass resolutions, but to also push off the weaker formal caucus members
(assuming only a limited number of sponsors can present during formal caucus) and prevent
them from gaining ownership, visibility, and perhaps points. In fact, if your caucus bloc is small
and contains a power delegate, it will most likely be swallowed by the bigger bloc when the
two draft resolutions merge; the bigger bloc will insist that they deserve a higher proportion of
representation leaving your original bloc with only one representative yes the power delegate
who the other bloc believes is your blocs leader.
But a merger is essentially a gigantic amendment to the draft resolution, so in order for draft
resolutions to be merged, all sponsors on both sides must agree. Again, this is where you can
decide to disagree, effectively vetoing the merger. This sends a message to the supposed power
brokers that any decisions to merge will have to go through you. Be persistent and do not fold
under peer pressure, assuming again that your disagreement is considerate to your loyal bloc
allies and principled (on policy). Your loyal bloc allies will see right through the power
delegates attempt to use the bloc for his/her own gain and will respect you for standing up to
him/her.
13

SHS Model UN 2013

One word of caution though: make sure you understand the conferences philosophy. A Model
UN conference that favors principled negotiation will most likely have chairs that look down
upon this strategy because they would rather see a delegate navigate the compromise process and
merge his/her resolutions rather than respect that delegate for leading a particular bloc or
authoring many good ideas. In other words, saying no to a seemingly agreeable idea is seen as
undiplomatic, whereas in other conferences, saying no is a strategy and a leaders right. (You
can tell if a conference philosophy is the latter when multiple blocs have essentially the same
ideas and decide to pass each others resolutions rather than merge).
Vetoing a power delegates amendment or desire to complete a backdoor merge is a very simple
technique, but I rarely see delegates using it. As a sponsor, you always have the right to say no
to changes and additions to a resolution that you helped author. Dont allow the power delegate
to take that authorship away from you.

How to Debate Resolutions

Someone from the Netherlands e-mailed me in the middle of an MUN conference asking how to
speak about committee resolutions and whether to take points of information. I tried e-mailing
back but the return address would not work, so Im just posting my response here. I also think
other people might find it useful. And dont hesitate to e-mail me yourself, either to ask a
question or just let me know your thoughts about my website or MUN in general.
Thank you for e-mailing me. What is your committee? And what does the resolution say? How
long is it? Who are the sponsors? And are you speaking in favor or against it? Also, I believe that
MUN in Europe is different than MUN in America, so I am not familiar with your rules of
procedure.
Regardless, here are some basic tips for talking about your resolution:
1. State whether you are in favor or against the resolution.
2. In 1 sentence or 1 word, explain why you do or do not favor the resolution.
3. Pick 3 operative clauses to support your argument.
4. Encourage the committee to vote in favor or against the resolution.
For example: The Netherlands favors this resolution because it is comprehensive. Look at
clauses x, y, and z. [Explain what x, y, and z does] The resolution addresses all of the major
points that were brought up in debate. We encourage the committee to vote in favor of the
resolution.
Another example: The Netherlands is against this resolution because it is vague. Look at clauses
x, y, and z. [Explain what x, y, and z fail to do] The resolution does nothing. We urge the
committee to vote against the resolution.
I am assuming that you dont have a lot of time to talk about the resolution, so you need to focus
your speech. Using 1 sentence and 3 operative clauses to describe the resolution makes it easier
for the audience to remember what youre saying.
14

SHS Model UN 2013

If you have time remaining, I think it is a good idea to yield to points of information unless you
have a very good reason not to; for example, you said something unpopular so delegates will use
their questions to attack you. But if you wrote the resolution or are one of its primary sponsors,
then you need to answer questions from the delegates. If you wont defend your resolution, no
one else will.
I am assuming you wrote the resolution or are one of its sponsors. In that case, I suggest
answering as many points of resolution as you can until you run out of speaking time. If the chair
allows you to select delegates, and if you are very confident in your resolution and your debating
skills, then pick delegates who are sponsors on the opposing resolution. Expect them to attack
your resolution, but use it to your advantage by arguing back. Sponsors on the opposing
resolution will make criticisms in their own speeches and you will not have an opportunity to
respond. So use your speaking time as an opportunity to address any concerns people might
have.
But if you do think there are some weaknesses in your resolution, or if you are unsure of your
debating skills, then select delegates who are not on either resolution, or could go either way.
You want to convince the delegate that it is in their countrys policy to vote in favor of your
resolution. You also want to convince them that none of your operative clauses are against their
countrys policy. At the end, thank them for their question.
Regardless of who is asking the question, answer completely and politely; do not get defensive
because that makes you look bad. And keep your responses short. You want to answer questions
completely, but you also want to answer as many as possible.

Committee Etiquette
The following is a guest post by Aryestis Vlahakis, Yale University, Timothy Dwight College 09
Delegates often overlook the issue of committee etiquette. How should one behave towards
fellow delegates? How should one behave towards the chair and the rest of the dais staff?
Etiquette means respecting your fellow delegates positions and opinions even though you may
not agree with them orbe honest hereeven if you dont like some of them. And excellent
etiquette can help you win Best Delegate.
In any committee, particularly General Assembly committees, you want to make your presence
known to the chair. Although good chairs will familiarize themselves with everyone in committee,
you might have bad chairs or a big committee. So, you need to take that extra step to make
yourself known.
Before the first session of the conference, walk in a little early and introduce yourself. You dont
have to get into a deep philosophical debate; just offer a couple of words about you, your
country, and your school. And speak with confidence.
Hi, Im Aryestis and Im representing Greece. I actually do come from Greece, but right now
Im studying at Yale. I just wanted to introduce myself. It was nice to meet you.
as a team player, not as someone who is trying to leverage an unfair advantage because the chair
knows him.
The same goes for interactions with You are now one step ahead.

15

SHS Model UN 2013

If you have a question about the committee or the topic matter, now is an excellent time to ask,
but do not make up a meaningless question on the spot. Good chairs see right through this, and
then you look like a suck up.
Doing this will not guarantee a win, but it certainly grabs the chairs attention. Impressed chairs
will look forward to hearing you speak. They may even offer you an advantage when calling on
delegates during moderated caucus and pick you first.
This should be your attitude towards the chair throughout the committee. You should not be
afraid to approach him. Chairs are generally very knowledgeable on the subject and offer good
advice when you are stuck in committee.
But do not, under any circumstances, suck up to the chair. Although this may sometimes work,
the chair will see right through it and you will look like a complete fool.
The whole idea is to present yourself your fellow delegates. You have to present yourself as an
easily approachable, easy-going person who is willing to discuss other peoples ideas and
compromise on them.
In most cases, the delegate who wins the committee is the one who leads it to a consensus. You
cannot be that person if you refuse to work with other delegates, especially the delegates who
have all the good ideas. Even if you do not like other delegates, you need to overcome your
personal likes and dislikes and be an effective diplomat. Remember that Model UN is not a
naturally competitive activity, but one that demands negotiation and consensus.
The best way to present yourself to other delegates is the same way you should present yourself
to your chair. Get to your committee room early, reserve yourself a good seat, then walk around
the room and introduce yourself to the other delegates. You can ask them what they think about
the topics or Britney Spears latest nervous breakdown. The point is to get out there and get to
know your fellow delegates.
Because all this may be hard to remember when you get into the hustle and bustle of committee,
when you are not sure how to act or what to do, just think of these three things:

Dont be afraid to go up and talk to the chair and fellow delegates

Be confident and polite

Be diplomatic and willing to compromise.

Sales Strategies: Cushioning Statements

Salespeople use Cushioning Statements when they want to allow the customer to feel heard,
enable the customer to gain confidence in the salesperson, and when the salesperson wants the
customer to open up his/her thoughts. In Model UN, it is a strategy that the Best Delegatemay
use when he or she too wants other delegates to feel heard and enable other delegates to gain
confidence and trust in him/her.
Here are some examples:
* Good question!
* Im glad you asked
* Another delegate asked me that earlier.
* Interesting point.
* I havent heard that argument made yet.
16

SHS Model UN 2013

* I understand, but
* I understand, and
* Thats a legitimate concern.
* I can see why your country would agree/disagree with this policy/idea/operative clause/etc.
Think for a moment that youre a delegate with a real question or concern. Wouldnt you feel at
least a little more respected or heard if another delegate replied with one of those Cushioning
Statements before launching into his/her response? I sure would.
There are many situations in Model UN when you can insert a Cushioning Statement to make
other delegates feel like they can trust you or that you care about their questions and opinions:
when you yield your speech time to questions, when you are defending your policies or solutions
in an unmoderated or informal caucus, and when you are answering questions during formal
caucus. You can even insert Cushioning Statements into your speech, although Cushioning
Statements are usually most effective when directed at the individual delegate that is questioning
or interacting with yo
THE END.

17