The Katedralskolan Model UN Retrospective

 Morten Bäckström Ounsted

On Friday the twenty sixth of September, students at Katedralskolan initiated and hosted a model UN. The premise of the model UN was an alternative scenario to the end of World War 2 in Europe, where Hitler had been assassinated in a coup and Germany was controlled by a non-Nazi but still non-Western government. 

It is exceedingly difficult to categorize the roles of countries in the Second World War, so the hosts attempted it by creating categories between the major powers that existed at the time. The Western block consisted of the allies as well as governments-in-exile, while The Eastern block consisted of the USSR as well as Soviet-dominated states. 

The most important block was the German block, representing a group that prior to the coup was at war with all of the other blocks. A crucial part of student participation was how the German block decided to act to consolidate its territory, as well as which of the blocks, who were previously fighting against the Germans, would collaborate with them.

An interesting choice of countries to group together was the independent block; Spain, Italy and Finland. As these countries were previously Nazi or Soviet influenced territories, it appeared at first strange to group these countries together like this. It turned out that the course of the debate revolved heavily around gathering the support of smaller states. This diverse block did contribute to the complexity of the model UN beneficially.

Map of Europe in March 1945 (omniatlas.com).

Blocks - or individual countries - would propose resolutions for the drawing of new borders. These resolutions were then subject to criticism and modification by other parties. In the end, the resolution with the most votes won. The students attempted to fulfill their countries’ tasks and they acted in a fashion that reflected their understanding of the countries they represented. In turn, this revealed the students’ attitudes towards World War 2 events.

Looking back on it months later, how powerful was the effect of the role play on the participants? Take me as an example; I represented The Lublin Committee, a Polish state only recognized by the USSR, and which I had not heard of before joining the model UN. Despite this, when the popular resolution proposed by The Western Block dissolved the Lublin Committee, I found myself temporarily feeling annoyed and cheated. It seems that the Model UN was able to evoke a response from me. I suspect it was the same for many other students.

The biggest success of this event was responses like mine. I think that there is an emotional human instinct to irrationally defend a label which you are given. This is the basis for societal problems like extreme nationalism. Participating in such events improves our ability to remain true to our beliefs despite temporarily taking on others.  

My major criticism is that the allies controlled a large amount of votes in the final process, giving them an advantage which allowed them to propose a resolution without much consolidation on their part. There was a surplus of students, many countries being represented by multiple at a time. Thus, more states in the independent, German and Soviet blocks would have furthered the depth of the model UN. However, it was still an impressive feat of diplomacy for The Western Block to gain the entirety of the German block, as well as the Spanish and Finnish, vote for their resolution.

In retrospect, the model UN was a fantastic way to engage students in a thoughtful topic. I hope to see more student-initiated events like it.