My experience as a delegate within the crisis committee at OXIMUN

I had to contend with a brewing assassination plot against me in an unmoderated caucus, court delegates for troops and monetary support in breaks, and pass notes constantly.

About a month ago, I attended OXIMUN 2024, in Oxford, participating in the 1911 Asian Crisis Committee. Obviously, a crisis committee gives you the opportunity to explore a different mode of debate in a familiar format. The motions and procedures common in a standard MUN debate are consistent, excluding a resolution, and the additional rules are not so complicated as to constitute a different format- for me, as a delegate familiar with MUN’s general rules of procedure, this was an incredible relief, as I could explore the format without too much difficulty. The actual debate, research, and objective differ entirely from MUN- as a person, rather than a representative, I was able to hold beliefs within the debate. I’ve found that MUN at a high level is uniquely beliefless- once every delegate immerses themselves into their country properly, the debate itself becomes more procedural, and the ‘game’ becomes one of sneaking your policy goals into the resolution. 

A crisis committee allows you to forego the policy and country stance, and instead fight for your cause. This does mean that the prep work and research are incredibly different to that of a typical MUN conference. I had to read my character's essays and understand his political and social philosophies, something that I’ve never had to do for a nation. The unique assignment also allows you to make actions or advance policies that would be otherwise unfeasible in a standard conference- notably invasions. As Bal Gangadhar Tilak, I spent all three days of OxiMUN expelling the Raj from India (an ultimately fruitless endeavor), which allowed me to engage in rhetoric and policy completely unheard of in any high-level conference.

The most striking thing about a crisis committee is the sheer amount of under-the-table diplomacy that you must engage in. Most MUN sessions have a fair amount of policies decided upon in breaks and lunch, but in a crisis committee, the degree to which you have to convince allies and maintain allies is amplified greatly. I had to contend with a brewing assassination plot against me in an unmoderated caucus, court delegates for troops and monetary support in breaks, and pass notes constantly. All this while monitoring who was talking to who, and formulating your own strategy. The genuine procedure, GSL, and moderated caucuses took a back seat to the scheming being done in notes and WhatsApp messages. This was an incredibly enjoyable experience, but also an exhausting one. Our committee had to ban lobbying during lunch after the first day, and still, we were paranoid that other delegates would forgo the ban and lobby nonetheless. 

A crisis committee, unlike the MUN standard, cannot be decided by political promises and existing allyships between nations- oftentimes, the individuals being represented are self-interested above all else. Despite the stress involved, I would heavily recommend crisis committees to any person who wants to immerse themselves in a debate as a true stakeholder, or any delegate experienced in MUN looking for a minor change.