Reflection of Model UN Simulation

The Model United Nations Middle East Crisis Simulation was one of the most interesting things I have taken a part in.  I had no idea what to expect, and I was unsure if I was going to be sufficiently prepared.  I imagined a huge room full of people representing different nations, with representatives from each nation getting up and giving speeches about their countries.  However, when I entered the room with just my group I was relieved.  It was far more interesting to be in a small group; small groups facilitate easier discussion and faster decision-making.  It was also a lot less nerve-racking than getting up and talking to a large audience. 

My role in the group was the Minister of Education, as discussed in the previous Model UN blogs, but I also took on the role as the group organizer/secretary.  I really enjoy filling leadership roles, and organization is certainly one of my stronger points, so I had a lot of fun gathering everyone’s information and putting together a binder for our group.  I feel as though this role allowed me to learn a lot about every one else’s ministries, through reading their blogs and putting together information for the simulation.

The first day of the simulation was especially exciting.  We were faced with many domestic and foreign policy issues we needed to discuss.  We placed a lot of emphasis on strengthening our relations with Iraq.  We also discussed measures to strengthen the parliament in Kuwait, which would make further steps toward democracy.  However, we were careful not to allow all requests parliament was asking of us, as to not grant parliament too much power at one time or weaken the cabinet of Kuwait.  Israel attempted to report its support of our decisions, but the media twisted their statement.  The information we received implied Israel disapproved of our decision-making and were willing to use military force if we did not move toward democracy.  After receiving this information, Peter and I had the opportunity to meet with Israel (which I was very excited about).  In this meeting, we were able to straighten out the miscommunication, and form a stronger relationship with Israel. 

I was very happy about the overall participation of our group.  Everyone was very knowledgeable of his or her ministry and able to provide beneficial input throughout the simulation.  There was never a silent moment when we had a decision to make.  The teamwork was exceptional, with everyone working together to explain, understand, and produce good conclusions.  However, Kuwait being a relatively small and peaceful country, there were hardly any huge crises for us to deal with.  We mostly discussed domestic issues we had studied while researching our ministries.  We made some excellent decisions concerning oil, restructure of the foreign working population regulations, education, and the like.  We also spent time putting our input into other situations and crises going on in the countries around us. 

In conclusion, I gained a lot of knowledge about teamwork, the situation in the Middle East, leadership, and decision-making through the two-day simulation.  It was interesting to explore and learn about another culture, especially that of Kuwait.  This project made me realize my interest in foreign relations and cultural studies.  It has also provoked an interest in governmental leadership.  I would be eager to participate in another simulation like the Model UN Middle East Crisis Simulation.  

Current Events in Zimbabwe

Since the background and structure of Zimbabwe have been somewhat laid out in the first few blog posts, it is time to delve into and analyze the current events occurring in Zimbabwe.  With the following blog posts, I aim to summarize several articles and analyze them further.  My personal input will be based on the knowledge gained of Zimbabwe throughout this blog assignment. 

Articles retrieved from Change Zimbabwe will be used in this post. Change Zimbabwe is a web news source in Zimbabwe with goals “to promote peaceful change in Zimbabwe and to facilitate commerce both at individual and company levels and at local and international levels.”  Although some articles, such as “Taking It To Mugabe’s Doorstep”, are found to be slightly biased, this website proves to be a valuable source of current event articles on Zimbabwe. 

“Taking It To Mugabe’s Doorstep”- Written by Voice of Change on April 16, 2009

            This article speculates whether or not the power-sharing agreement between Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe will remain intact, considering recent criticisms of both parties and news that the MDC is finding it difficult and frustrating to maintain any power.  Robert Mugabe has taken a strong hold on power, and is reluctant and unlikely to abide by the power-sharing agreement he signed several months ago. 

Unable to attain, from external sources, the $100 million per month that Zimbabwe relies on to keep the state in tact, Zimbabwe is facing serious economic troubles.  News has been released, however, that the government spends around $23 million monthly (out of $30 million received from tax dollars monthly) to fund civil servants salaries.  Information like this has built a strong mistrust among other nations to fund Zimbabwe.  The judicial system is also tainted, with many innocent members of the MDC being locked up for false charges. 

The people of Zimbabwe are called upon by the Voice of Change to “realize who is responsible for their misery and suffering, for the refusal of donors to give money, for failure of perpetrators of violence to be brought to the book, for justice and prosperity to prevail.”  This article places that accountability on Robert Mugabe.  Considering previous sources used to create this blog, this assumption, though biased, does not seem too far off.  From what I have learned, Robert Mugabe has a track record for violence and manipulation to maintain his power.  As the only leader Zimbabwe has known since independence (that is until Tsvangirai became Prime Minister), his should be held accountable for the troubles his state is now facing. 

“Madhuku Must Bring NCA To Parly Constitution Committee”- Written by CZ Correspondent on Wednesday, 15 April 2009

            Lovemore Moyo, The Speaker of Parliament, announced the new Parliamentary Constitutional Committee composed of members from both the MDC and ZANU-PF parties.  The committee is expected to begin drafting the new constitution, to be finished by February of next year, sometime next week.  If accepted by the Zimbabwean people, the Constitution will go into effect by the end of 2010.  This is an incredible movement for the country of Zimbabwe, and will set legislation preparing the country for a new election. 

            However, not all on the committee are “gung-ho” over the development of the constitution.  Lovemore Madhuku, chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly, is working to persuade other members “the process is not people-driven; it will be controlled by the political parties.”  He feels as though the committee is not incorporating the opinions of the Zimbabwean people, and that if this constitution will not be one of the people, than there is simply no point in creating the document.  He is starting a campaign for “No Vote”, to avoid the passing of the constitution.

            Madhuku’s opposition sheds light on the fact that there will be consultation with civil society organizations to gain knowledge of the hopes Zimbabweans have for the new legislation.  It is also true the Zimbabwean community voted for these particular governmental figures to represent them and their opinions.  MDC UK chairman, Jonathan Chawora makes the point-

“Madhuku is entitled to his opinion, but at the end of the day, the process is being led by elected representatives (of which he is not), representing the grassroots.  It is my understanding and my hope that the Parliamentarians will go down to the grassroots and the people will decide what kind of Constitution they want.”

This is a very relevant argument, which makes clear the new constitutional assembly is attempting to strengthen representative-democracy. 

            The discussion of a new constitution is definitely a significant step for Zimbabwe.  The fact that the MDC and ZANU-PF parties are coming together to put together a “law of the land” is beyond anything Zimbabwe has yet to experience governmentally.  The only doubts I have are derived from what I learned in the last article.  If the power-sharing agreement falls through, what will be made of the new constitution?  If Mugabe takes full power again, will he disregard the democratic document?  Instead, if Tsvangirai takes power, will the ideals of the ZANU-PF reflected in the constitution be suppressed? 

“Persecution of MDC’s Mudzingwa Continues”- Written by Makusha Mugabe on April 9, 2009

            Last December, Morgan Tsvagirai’s former personal assistant, Gandhi Mudingwa, the chief security officer of the MDC, Kisimu Dhlamini, and a photo-journalist Andrison Manyere, along with several other political figures, were abducted, tortured and imprisoned based on charges of organizing bombings of several police stations and railway lines.  High Court Judge, Justice Charles Hungwe, claims, “The three are unlikely to commit the offense they are accused of committing.”  As we have learned, detaining political figureheads or supporters from the opposition party is a common practice of the ZANU-PF. 

The judge granted bail for the men on Thursday, April 9^th, a decision that was quickly overruled by Chris Mutangadura.  Mr. Mutangadura, on behalf of the Attorney General, implemented Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act; this provision automatically overrides bail orders, keeping the accused “criminals” in custody for another seven days so the state can file an appeal to the bail order. 

According to a spokesman from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (this group includes the attorneys representing these three men), 

“This provision is the most abused provision in relation to political detainees, a is clearly a further intent to frustrate the course of justice and deny accused persons their fundamental right to liberty.  ZLHR had recorded numerous cases in which section 121 has been invoked—particularly against members of the MDC and other human rights defenders in the wake of the 2008 elections—and most often after the expiry of the seven days, the State would not have filed an appeal.” 

This article is just a current example of the detainment the ZANU-PF has been practicing throughout and after the 2008 election period.  This article introduces the tactics and measures (such as the provision mentioned) ZANU-PF goes to in order to keep their opponents imprisoned.  The justice system, as mentioned in the discussion of the first article, is clearly flawed.  Structure and regulation of the judicial system is an area of the Zimbabwean government that is dangerously lacking.  This is certainly an important item for the constitutional committee to add to their agenda. 

Robert Mugabe

Robert Mugabe, the first Prime Minister and the current President of Zimbabwe, was born February 21, 1924 in Southern Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe).  Mugabe is a black nationalist who has attempted to form the nation on a Marxist platform.  Over the years Mugabe has fallen from the hailed symbol of a new Africa, through his fight against white colonization, to the epitome of a scoundrel, through a violent and corrupt dictatorship that has driven his country to rock bottom. 

            Mugabe was raised in the Catholic faith.  He was trained as a teacher in a Roman Catholic Mission school.  Robert Mugabe earned a total of six degrees including a Bachelor of Administration, a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Laws, a Bachelor of Arts, a Master of Science, and a Master of Laws.  He has studied at the University of South Africa, the University College of Fort Hare, Kutama College, the University of Oxford, the University of Salisbury, the University of Gwelo, the University of London, and the University of Tanzania.

            Politics came into Mugabe’s life while studying at the University College of Fort Hare, where he began to learn more about nationalist politics.  He got involved in politics when he returned to Rhodesia in 1960.  By 1963, he co-founded the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which was an opposition party to the governmental group, Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU).  Shortly after, he was arrested for “subversive speech” and remained in prison until 1965. 

Mugabe became a key player in the war for independence, which was fought and won by 1979.  In 1980, he became Prime Minister, in the British-supervised parliamentary elections.  As the leader of the newly founded state of Zimbabwe, Mugabe had goals to replace the two-party rule with a “one-party Marxist regime”.  He made drastic efforts to redeem the black population, and somewhat repress the white population, of Zimbabwe.  However, he did uphold the constitutional requirement of substantial white representation in parliament.

After a serious clash between the ZANU and ZAPU parties, which resulted in thousands of deaths, an eventual agreement was reached, creating the ZANU-PF.  In 1987, Robert Mugabe achieved his goal of retaining absolute control under a one-party rule, as he became the first executive president of Zimbabwe.  However, his rule was not a pleasant one, and in the 1990 election period, violence and intimidation were used to secure his reelection.  Towards the late 90’s, political strife had begun to develop more strongly.  The economy was going bad, and Mugabe announced pay increases for his cabinet members and himself, provoking rioting and anger among the people of Zimbabwe.

            This political unrest gave way to a serious opposition to Mugabe, the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai.  At this time, the Zimbabwean people were unhappy with Mugabe’s rule, and were ready for a change in government.  Inflation was occurring at astronomical rates and human rights were being neglected and ignored by the ZANU-PF.  However, in 2002 Mugabe was reelected in elections “tainted by violence and criticized by observers.”

            Later that year Mugabe passed laws allowing farms owned by whites to be confiscated with no compensation.  Experienced white farmers were replaced with black political figures leading to a decline in agricultural productivity.  On top of this issue, a drought occurred, leading to food shortages and starvation.  The economy was at its all time worst and Mugabe’s regime was growing viler.  

“As Mugabe’s popularity further declined, his regime became increasingly brutal and repressive.  Media freedom was curtailed, the opposition was harassed and beaten, and a controversial program that caused the demolition of illegal housing structures was implemented, rendering hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans homeless.  The economy continued to decline, and in 2007 the country had the highest rate of inflation in the world, as well as one of the highest rates of unemployment.”

            As we have studied, there have been progressive changes in Mugabe’s rule since the 2008 elections.  However, these transformations are slow coming; just this year, Robert Mugabe was named the number one worst dictator in the world by PARADE magazine.  Under his rule, Zimbabwe has the world’s shortest life expectancy and worst annual inflation rate.  We have learned that he has been partnered with his opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, and it will be interesting to see how this will alter his “regime”.