To join the 1st Indonesian Model United Nations held in UI (great job guys!!!), applicants must submit a 1700 word maximum essay by the topic of “A Letter for Ban Ki Moon” regarding nuclear and peace, something like that.
This is my result. 1 hour to deadline. It involves hard work, a bit. But much more of procrastination, and misfortune involving going almost half way and apparently did not save it :p
But here goes. Not perfect, and I admit that I realized just now that it might have swayed away from the given topic (T____T) but who cares. I did my best, with the given circumstances.
And here is the essay 🙂
Mr Secretary General, I write to you as myself. I am a normal citizen who had to grow up in a God forsaken developing nation.
A dictator government tried to indoctrinate us through education that this country is a very glorious and prosperous country. But I am among those who accepted the reality that the promised glory has been gone since many centuries ago, and the prosperity is only limited to a very small portion of the country of which its majority are the government officials at the time.
Growing up in such an environment -especially after spending 5 years of my earliest years in a welfare state- constructed many minds including mine to feel the exact opposite of Chauvinism: Inferiority. Revolution happened; the dictator government was toppled down. Yet many of us still grew to distrust the government, and –on the flip side- believe how other countries in the world –especially the strong ones- are awesome.
Mr Secretary General. Experiencing such contrasts life in my early child hood in a welfare state, and growing up to early adulthood in this forsaken country, I can really tell how nice it was there but not here. History awareness came, teaching me how my country spent centuries fighting off colonialists and the remaining decades were full of our people killing each other. Yet countries such as England, USA, and more, had beaten the Nazis. And they have beaten them twice. Such heroes they were, and such a sore loser my country was –being a trade commodity of the Portuguese and Spain, then England, then Netherlands, then Japan.
But then, Mr Secretary General, more mature sense came to me as I grew older, and now I lost my faith in everyone. The Japanese were beaten by dropping an atomic bomb. It killed ‘only’ two hundred and fifty thousands –much less than how much victims fell when the Russian Army took Berlin (and the Allied Forces tried to do the same)- but I see a significant difference.
Russians and Allied soldiers killed opposing soldiers and giving both sides quite a hard time before one just had to win in the end, but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were children, mothers, fathers, elders, doing all the routines they usually do. Fishing, farming, studying, playing, everything that had nothing to do with the war.
Tokyo surrendered, and peace was –claimed to be- achieved. On the Asia front, it marked the end of World War 2. But the Japanese suffered much greater losses in their societies especially those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki –if they didn’t end up losing the war, they certainly had something to complain for.
And in the ruins of World War 2, the United Nations was founded. The International Organization of which you are now Secretary General. Seeing what happened, it is very sweet to hear that a huge bunch of countries has gathered and agreed upon a common goal of achieving what we lack in the past decades: world peace. No more conflicts, no more casualties, no more legitimized killing –which pretty much what war does.
Yet I grew up finding out, Mr Secretary General, the top 5 powers permanently in charge for maintaining peace, don’t only hold veto powers. They also have the privilege to own nuclear weaponries: the same weapon that has killed civilians by the hundreds and thousands: but over time, much stronger.
Maybe we can all agree that actually using them is out of question. It is certainly against all agreed Geneva Conventions regarding Lawful Acts in War. Arguments appear that a mutual assured destruction deters each side from attacking each other, which demonstrated its truth during the Cold War. Other arguments come to support why only the Permanent 5 should have the power, namely the hegemonic peace theory. We cannot let everyone have a gun like the wild west ages, but someone needs to have it. Police like, in simple.
But Mr Secretary General, there are at least three things that we must remember. First, we know that sinking continents would not be a question. But the threat of a mutual assured destruction -targeting civilians, no less, mark that- is in essence against the fundamental right to feel safe and secure. And is that not the basic principle as to why we are fighting a war against terrorism?
Whether we intend to use nuclear weapons or not, is a violation nonetheless. So unless one can find a way to build nuclear weapons in such ways that it will only exterminate an attacking enemy force, which beats the idea of a nuclear weapon in the first place, then fine.
Second, Mr Secretary General, do we actually need such threats to end conflicts these days? The world has evolved into a different stage. Trade and commodity relations throughout the world have entangled almost everyone to each other. With many agreements of dispute settlement mechanisms, cheaper and less-life-cost ways to stop international conflicts are generally much preferred. States solve their conflicts in more mature ways, and economical entanglement with everybody else does the rest.
The very few remaining armed conflicts are generally internally within a country –of which the threat of nuclear weapon is definitely out of question-, and the nuclear weapons certainly are not helping the rest (Gaza, Gulf War 2, and Afghanistan Invasion).
A very noticeable conflict today would be the war on terrorism. But when one seems to have a fetish on strapping themselves with bombs and exploding themselves, would a bigger explosion only arouse them to act more? Pardon my French, Mr Secretary General. But if nukes actually drop on terrorist areas which are also highly infested with civilians, it would certainly give them more reasons. Not to mention, imagining terrorists somehow holding nuclear weapons would be a real nightmare.
Finally the third. Did you notice, Mr Secretary General, that the Nazi fighter planes and bombers –which then they burned London- could not fly without a special additive, which they purchased from U.S. Standard Oil?
And did you notice that many Somali Pirates and almost all Sudanese Government soldiers pursue their foes using Russian made arms?
And why, some non-P5 countries are indicated if not proven to have nuclear weapons such as –namely Israel, India, Pakistan- does not seem to be a problem while Iran -of which indications of actually owning nuclear weapons are quite minimum- has to be imposed with sanctions?
United Nations may desire world peace. But I wonder if the UN puts this dream to be achieved by those with the same desire? Do your strongest members actually want peace?
Let us be honest with ourselves, Mr Secretary General. Diplomats from each country have responsibilities to bring their country’s interest, do they not? And these people are sent by government, who are –on Social Contract Theory- responsible to their own citizens. Thus if there is an issue where a solution will benefit ‘world peace’ but not benefit themselves, is it not a simple choice for them?
It is certainly obvious that a world without nuclear weapons is –maybe not great, but- at least a much better world. Using nuclear power for electricity, if strictly regulated with its safety standards unlike Chernobyl, would be a very reliable source –which Iran is claiming to do and nobody could prove otherwise.
But is it actually possible to strip off every nuclear weapon? Deliberately weakening yourself when there is no guarantee that others would do the same certainly does not sound like a good idea. Imagine the chance of overpowering another country, if they don’t have a nuclear weapon anymore but your country does. And this other country knows this –thus, is the dilemma.
Non P5 countries already owning nuclear weapons usually only have that as ultimate bargaining power, while P5 also has other –non destructive- military and economic ultimate bargaining power. This is where the game should start, Mr Secretary General. There should be a policy which combines trust and –necessary- imperative power.
Non P5 countries that are potential to use nuclear as bargaining power will most likely use it so, especially if the P5 don’t own nukes anymore. But while the P5 does have nukes, they have the higher bargaining power.
So if you, Mr Secretary General, could manage to make the P5 start with disarming everybody else, that would be a good start. But mere force will not be enough. Everyone must know that not only they are pushed by stronger forces, but that it is for a greater good: a trend of disarmament.
Thus the P5 must first show good will, to also persuade everyone that “yes, we are going to disarm ourselves”. USA and Russia recently signed a treaty to reduce their stockpiles. More P5 should do the same. Not full reduction yet, they still need to control. After showing gesture, then impose other rogue countries to disarm –given that they actually have nuclear weapons. Then when only the P5 have nuclear weapons, this is the time for a simultaneous total disarmament agreement.
By the current global trend of dispute settlement and this solution, Mr Secretary General, nobody has visible reasons to actually own a nuclear weapon anymore even for their own country’s need for defense.
This is just an idea, Mr Secretary General, along other billions. All these ideas are different and unique in way, but we have a common feeling and wish.
Like me, Mr Secretary General, you come from a developing country in need for a better world to work together in peace and harmony. Like me, you know there is certainly something very wrong in the world today. And like me, you know how a drastic change is needed. Maybe like me, or maybe not, you might share the same pessimism.
But unlike me, you are actually in the position to kick start a change. It is a politician’s work to negotiate any ideas to fruition and you are The Secretary General of The United Nations. The only thing that stops many to act is position, and you have that.
Please prove to the world, that the UN actually can do something. Solutions are here and there. It is all a matter of finding and willing.
Much too late to ask for evaluations in perspective of application for IMUN.
But it is my way of thought, and I still hope for evaluations on that 🙂
Kindly respond, thank you everyone 😀