Brian Alexander Johnson

6-14-2018

How to Overcome Personal Bias in Model UN

Committees

Everything we do in our lives is shaped by our own perspectives. Whether it be about big vs.
small government, gun control, immigration, or just the best pizza topping, we all create bubbles
for ourselves. They house our thoughts: why one idea is better than the other, and vice versa.
Being the things that shape our entire lives, having your own ideas isn’t inherently a bad thing
for Model UN. In fact, when it comes to representing a country that aligns with your beliefs, it
can even be a good thing: after all, if you have thoughts on a subject, you’re probably well
versed with facts and figures to back them. But what about when you find yourself with a
country that doesn’t ​share​ those beliefs?

It wasn’t that long ago that a friend of mine was representing the Republic of Iraq. Placed into
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the intention of this
specialized committee was to solve gender equality and workers’ rights; both of which are hot
topics as of late for the republic, especially the former. Setting aside personal views, the fact is
that Iraq has had a rough ride over the last few decades: with militant Islamist groups entering
the area, and in 2004, Resolution 137 proclaiming ​sharia law​ as the determinant of civil justice.
In short: the actions of Iraq in recent years did not align with the beliefs of my friend and fellow
delegate.

This devastated him and ended up preventing his success.

The entire time out of committee, my friend was stressed over having to defend his country’s
alien views. Most of us spend our time arguing ​for​ human rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness by all; regardless of color or creed. Therefore, when a country is seen to violate those
rights, it’s difficult to find a happy-medium. Though researched and learned on Iraq’s views,
articulating a convincing argument in ​support​ of those views failed. Bloc efforts fell through
when he was unable to compromise with other, Western powers. In the end, he was left to
meekly shuffle into the crowd: occasionally voting on motions, but making no headway. Of
course, his story isn’t his alone, and I’ve known plenty of delegates (perhaps even ​you,​ dear
reader) to have felt this pain of personal views conflicting with country policy.

So, how do we fight it?

First is to understand exactly what you’re arguing. Though there are many human rights violators
in human rights committees or petroleum powerhouses in global warming committees, this
doesn’t mean your views are necessarily polarized. In effect, these real delegations have to come
up with real solutions too, and it comes with respect for their ​own​ values. Therefore, try to grasp
exactly where on the spectrum your policies lie. A country may preach secularism while
practicing pious extremism, and the other way around. ​Know your country!

Then, don’t just up and forget your own side: incorporate those elements as a ​counter!​ This is a
tool called “​preliminary refutation​”, and all that does is give a fancy word to coming up with a
counter argument to a point before your opponent can even make it. This is a powerful piece for
any​ debate, but in the case of country policy conflict, it’s especially useful because you already
have evidence against it. After all, you’ve probably been arguing for/against a side you’re now
on the opposite end of for a while. This is easier said than done, and try not to be too extreme.
But when embodying your country, don’t forget that passion counts too.

Third and finally, the best tip is to ​find friends​. Again, this may sound easier said than done, but
a lot of times it’s quite simple. One way is using proximity: Venezuela and Colombia are likely
to have similar policies against cartels because of their similar experiences. Middle Eastern
countries are often in good company too, sharing a common religion and sharia law justice
system to support policies in that favor. Further underlying problems can beset a delegate if they
can’t find support, but when it comes to policy/perspective confliction, look for ​similar views​,
even if they’re ​just​ ​slightly​ the same.

It’s not easy, but remember that this is a key skill that many judges will look toward when
deciding winners. Chairs that see Saudi Arabia preaching for an immediate ban on oils will only
disregard them completely. Remember to ​research​, ​refute​, and ​relate​: they’re not just useful as a
general skill, but especially when juggling your own views and those of the delegation.

It could save your delegation!