Depending on how frequently you read my blog, you may or may not know that I went to a Model United Nations conference a week or so ago. I hope the topic isn't stale, but there are a few things I needed to take a moment to reflect on before blogging for 'the world' to see.
The logistics you need to know:
I represented a delegate from Venezuela. During the conference, which was downtown at the Palmer House, we attended committee where I discussed the ins &outs of cyberlaw.
Although my initial attempts at passing my own resolution failed miserably, I was able to pass an amendment to another's. Instead of a government having the right to regulate internet content that "facilitates conflict", I convinced the majority that a government must reserve that right for anything that "threatens to facilitate conflict." One word. One word that completely changes the meaning of the entire clause. All I can say is seeing the delegates from North Korea, China, Egypt & Venezuela high five probably should have tipped off more nations of our shenanigans.
Amidst this tomfoolery, my class was fortunate enough to meet with the Venezuelan consulate based in Chicago. The consul official opened with a powerpoint (or rather, he was supposed to open with a powerpoint but waited ten minutes instead because of technical issues). He dispelled interesting information I didn't know - such as the three tiered health care system in Venezuela. What was most interesting, was his different take on the information I did 'know.' My perception of Venezuela's views on cyberlaw were less than democratic with a pretty heavy pro-regulation stance. The Venezuelan consul official, however, was very adamant about distinguishing Venezuela's government from Egypt's. He highlighted how many elections each country has had in the past ten or so years. Egypt's one to Venezuela's ten. Venezuela even had an opposing party in the last election.
That sounds a lot better than how the U.S. media portrays Chavez's presidency. But, does it change anything? How much can the way you frame information change how it's weighed?
I was able to pass my amendment because I controlled how it was viewed. I said there was a flaw in the previous wording because having to wait until conflict actually broke out would be inhuman. If you knew something was dangerous to your citizens' well being, why must you wait for it to hurt them before you can act out against it? Adding just one word rectified this problem. Heck, that sounded much better than: we need more power to be able to control any and all content we think may go against the interests of our nation.
By comparing Venezuela to Egypt, the consular official controlled the scenario; he established a line in the sand of what was an agreed upon dictatorship and why Chavez is far from that threshold. He made his job easier rather than if he had to defend why Venezuela is as pro- free speech, rainbows, and hugs as the United States.
I will admit, the consular official got me thinking, and that is something I can always respect. He also encouraged questions because Venezuela loves to get to the heart of debate (as he put it). This rings true with Venezuela's involvement in the World Bank - where they don't sign much of anything, but they make enough noise to get to deeper issues and concerns.
With the Venezuelan consulate as inspiration - fire away with the questions. If you're feeling adventurous and want to ask something not related to this particular post, comment away and I might write my next blog post for you!
(Also - check out my friend Whimsy's blog. Here is a related post on the Model UN conference if I sparked your interest.)
i'd be interested in seeing some sort of experiment or survey that changes the perspective on how global politics-- or even just social structures in general-- run.
ReplyDeleteHey Alyssa!
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for linking to my blog - I need to work on my tech savy skills because I did not know until I read your blog.
Second, very interesting post. You did a very good job at explaining how controlling a situation, both in regards to the Venezuelan Consulate and the debate in Model UN, can change the outcome of the debate - regardless of what other people think. I think it is a powerful tool and can be both used and misused as you said. There is a thing in psychology we learned about called a question error. It means that two different questions asking the same thing in different ways gets the same answer. I think this is a similar situation. You wrote very eloquently about it, great job!