Story
24 November 2025
Model UN ANEP 2025: learning diplomacy by doing it
On November 15 and 16, we held the Model United Nations ANEP 2025 at the Montevideo City Hall. More than 400 secondary-education students from across the country came together to faithfully and enthusiastically recreate the workings of the UN’s principal bodies. For us at United Nations Uruguay, in partnership with the National Administration of Public Education (ANEP), it was far more than an event: it was a living scene of multilateralism in action and a key milestone in the series of activities we are carrying out to mark the 80th anniversary of the United Nations The Model didn’t begin on opening day—it began months earlier, when participants and their teacher supervisors were called and selected. There were 16 students per department: eight from the General Directorate of Secondary Education and eight from the General Directorate of Technical and Vocational Education (UTU). Delegations from the Military High School and the Naval School also took part. In this way, the Model took on an unprecedented form, both for the number of participants and for its comprehensive territorial reach.
Once selected, the United Nations led the training. Over months of meetings, workshops, materials, and virtual sessions, we prepared delegations and chairs for something that leaves no room for improvisation: debating respectfully, negotiating on evidence, and building agreements that can withstand scrutiny and be put on paper. That groundwork was evident in every room—in the confidence with which delegates asked for the floor, the clarity of their speeches, the discipline in keeping to time, and the composure with which disagreements were handled. Four bodies shaped the experience: the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council structured their work through general and particular debates, allowing motions and points of information to channel the conversation. The Security Council operated without motions, demanding fine-tuned negotiation, an understanding of the veto, and a focus on operational outcomes. The Ambassadors’ Summit acted as a political compass, aligning priorities and facilitating dialogue among bodies. In short, it was an orchestra with different timbres and a single purpose: learning by doing.The topics rose to the challenges of our time. In the General Assembly, the discussion on artificial intelligence and education put access barriers, equity, and inclusion squarely on the table; and the debate on mental health in post-pandemic contexts brought together data, rights, and the role of public policy.In the Human Rights Council, the deep dive into the digital rights of children and adolescents required serious consideration of protection, participation, and privacy, while the discussion on climate justice made visible the disproportionate impacts on women, youth, and minorities—recognizing a healthy environment as a universal human right.
In the Security Council, two urgent conversations took center stage: preventing violent extremism among youth—with education, inclusion, and social media as key pillars—and the link between climate change and food security, marked by tensions over access to basic resources.Meanwhile, at the Ambassadors’ Summit, delegates spent both days debating the 2030 Agenda and the challenges of multilateralism, in the context of the UN’s 80th anniversary. But the Model’s value lay not only in the topics—it lay in the method. Moderated and unmoderated debates showed how drafts became working papers, how amendments improved texts, and how procedure—sometimes demanding, always necessary—helps make politics (including student politics) better politics. Negotiations were carried out with conviction; concessions were made when appropriate; positions were defended firmly when needed. There were moments of productive silence, of searching for the right word, of numbers clearing up misunderstandings, of commas and periods bringing order to decisions. Diplomacy became tangible.None of this would have been possible without a web of partnerships. ANEP was our strategic counterpart and co-organizer; its Directorate of International Relations and Cooperation sustained the institutional rollout and logistics. Teams from public education, authorities, evaluators, and a dedicated volunteer corps ensured that every room ran smoothly. Our gratitude extends to the chairs of each body for their procedural stewardship and, above all, to the students—the protagonists of an experience that demands cool heads, respect for rules, and teamwork.
Given its national scope, its articulation with the public administration, and its treatment of a global agenda with local impact, this Model stands out as unprecedented in Uruguay and exemplary in the region. You can see it in the effect of watching hundreds of young people practice democratic citizenship, grasp that there is someone on the other side of the microphone who thinks differently, and discover that agreement—when it comes—is the fruit of patience, evidence, and listening.We at United Nations Uruguay will continue to promote these spaces.
Once selected, the United Nations led the training. Over months of meetings, workshops, materials, and virtual sessions, we prepared delegations and chairs for something that leaves no room for improvisation: debating respectfully, negotiating on evidence, and building agreements that can withstand scrutiny and be put on paper. That groundwork was evident in every room—in the confidence with which delegates asked for the floor, the clarity of their speeches, the discipline in keeping to time, and the composure with which disagreements were handled. Four bodies shaped the experience: the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council structured their work through general and particular debates, allowing motions and points of information to channel the conversation. The Security Council operated without motions, demanding fine-tuned negotiation, an understanding of the veto, and a focus on operational outcomes. The Ambassadors’ Summit acted as a political compass, aligning priorities and facilitating dialogue among bodies. In short, it was an orchestra with different timbres and a single purpose: learning by doing.The topics rose to the challenges of our time. In the General Assembly, the discussion on artificial intelligence and education put access barriers, equity, and inclusion squarely on the table; and the debate on mental health in post-pandemic contexts brought together data, rights, and the role of public policy.In the Human Rights Council, the deep dive into the digital rights of children and adolescents required serious consideration of protection, participation, and privacy, while the discussion on climate justice made visible the disproportionate impacts on women, youth, and minorities—recognizing a healthy environment as a universal human right.
In the Security Council, two urgent conversations took center stage: preventing violent extremism among youth—with education, inclusion, and social media as key pillars—and the link between climate change and food security, marked by tensions over access to basic resources.Meanwhile, at the Ambassadors’ Summit, delegates spent both days debating the 2030 Agenda and the challenges of multilateralism, in the context of the UN’s 80th anniversary. But the Model’s value lay not only in the topics—it lay in the method. Moderated and unmoderated debates showed how drafts became working papers, how amendments improved texts, and how procedure—sometimes demanding, always necessary—helps make politics (including student politics) better politics. Negotiations were carried out with conviction; concessions were made when appropriate; positions were defended firmly when needed. There were moments of productive silence, of searching for the right word, of numbers clearing up misunderstandings, of commas and periods bringing order to decisions. Diplomacy became tangible.None of this would have been possible without a web of partnerships. ANEP was our strategic counterpart and co-organizer; its Directorate of International Relations and Cooperation sustained the institutional rollout and logistics. Teams from public education, authorities, evaluators, and a dedicated volunteer corps ensured that every room ran smoothly. Our gratitude extends to the chairs of each body for their procedural stewardship and, above all, to the students—the protagonists of an experience that demands cool heads, respect for rules, and teamwork.
Given its national scope, its articulation with the public administration, and its treatment of a global agenda with local impact, this Model stands out as unprecedented in Uruguay and exemplary in the region. You can see it in the effect of watching hundreds of young people practice democratic citizenship, grasp that there is someone on the other side of the microphone who thinks differently, and discover that agreement—when it comes—is the fruit of patience, evidence, and listening.We at United Nations Uruguay will continue to promote these spaces.
