The decline of dialogue
Why the United Nations is a caucaphony of voices
March 21, 2007
Sarah Endacott
This weekend, those of us taking Paul Rowe’s class in Globalization and Governance had the opportunity to experience a Model United Nations. Each of us adopted the role of an assigned country and met on Saturday morning to discuss the topic of “Peacebuilding,” with the intent of allocating an imaginary $100 million to the most deserving countries. As a firm believer in the potentiality of the United Nations to make a positive difference in the globe for the betterment of the developing nations, the whole experience was full of letdown, frustration, and disappointment in the international regime that I have been so intent on championing.
Throughout the entire event, the ability to actually converse felt stifled by procedure: in order to be able to contribute to the debate one had to wait for their turn on the speakers list, any dialogue between allies had to be preformed in the allotted ten or fifteen minutes of unmediated caucusing as determined by the present body, and one only had the opportunity to introduce a potential resolution in the rare occasions that they, or one of their allies, had the floor.
The fact that not a single resolution was passed was hardly surprising. Fortunately, since ours was only a representation of actual assemblies, Somalia, Lebanon, Sudan, or other such areas requiring UN peace building assistance are none the worse off for our failure to reach a conclusion.
However, what this example of our attempt at the United Nations does aptly illustrate is the decline of dialogue. Throughout the entire procedure, there was much that could have been said and much that those present wanted to say. Despite this, it was very difficult to actually begin a constructive discussion. Oddly enough, much of this failure was a result of the very manner in which the UN is constructed. Because of the emphasis on procedure and order, nothing was actually achieved, and the possibility of productive dialectic was immediately halted.
As a result, participants had to resort to contributing in two-minute sound bites, talking with allies during assembly while any discussion with opposing viewpoints was ignored.
Rather than seeming effective, it felt counteractive to reaching any agreements, opposing progress instead of pursuing it. Sadly, knowing that this is the manner in which the real United Nations operates is discouraging and leads me to question the proficiency of the UN. Dialogue is not pursued, which is regrettable because practicing such discussion is essential for the understanding required for reaching resolutions that could better the world.
In his discourse On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes the case for the necessity of dialogue. He argues that truth can only be wrought in discussion; that it is only through the debate between opposite points that a society can ever hope to reach agreement that resembles truth. For him, truth is not an abstract idea, but is simply the task of combining and reconciling differences, a task that can only be preformed through the spirit of discussion. Without dialogue, agreement is unachievable and truth is an illusion. Cutting out the art of healthy debate, therefore, is an act that would be counterproductive to any society.
Whether or not Mill is correct in his approximation of truth, his defense of discourse is one that needs to be heeded by society, and particularly by governing bodies such as the UN. As citizens of the world, we trust that the UN has everyone’s best interests at heart. However, when its manner of operation cuts out discussion, it is hard to imagine that it could ever be capable of reaching agreement and making the decisions that the world needs. Instead of behaving like a body open to differing viewpoints, using them to find truth, it becomes reduced to a forum in which countries’ delegates air their grievances and then go their separate ways–no closer to a better world than when they started.
Now you go...
One Response to “The decline of dialogue”
Got something to say?
Interesting thoughts Sarah. I can definately see your point and I was equally frustrated with the legalistic formality. However, I think it is still better than the alternative, which could be chaos. In order to get USA, Israel, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and others into the same room, I think legalistic formality is required. The current system is imperfect and incredibaly frustrating, but at least when you did have a turn to speak you could count on not being interupted by the man who absolutely hates everything your country stands for.