NATO Council 1989
StuyMUNC 2017
Chair: Lorenz Vargas
Director: Anton Solodkov
Liaison: ​Samantha Adrianzen
Letter from your Chair
Dear Delegates,
Salutations and felicitations! My name is Lorenz Vargas, Secretary-General of
Stuyvesant Model UN. I am excited and proud to call myself your chair for StuyMUNC
2017’s NATO Council 1989 committee! Let me introduce myself. I’m a Stuy senior that
possesses a love for international relations, military history, and economics that is only
rivaled by a love for otaku culture, music of all sorts (especially jazz), and Dr Pepper.
My extracurriculars outside of Model UN include singing as a baritone in the school’s
chorus, being the President of the Stuyvesant Anime Club (my greatest achievement!),
leading the school’s Parliamentary Debate team, and tutoring computer science. In my
free time, I compete on a semi-professional Overwatch team, read and watch whatever,
and generally laze about!
I’ve been doing Model UN since 8th grade, going to a variety of conferences
usually as a crisis delegate. This is my fourth and last year helping out at StuyMUNC. I
served as a Director in our JCC Game of Thrones: Baratheon in my freshman year. I
chaired the 1914 British Parliament in my sophomore year and the 8th Politburo of the
Communist Party of China in my junior year. Out of all my years in StuyMUNC, I’m
looking forward to this one, my last one the most as we shall be endeavoring to bring
life to one of the most interesting and consequential years in all of political history - 1989
- from the perspective of NATO. I’ve always been amazed at the level of intellect and
engagement I’ve encountered from delegates and I’m sure that this year will be no
exception.
Please keep in mind that this will be a historical crisis committee. This means
that our committee will be modeling events that have already occurred. With each of
you filling the role of a head of government of a NATO country, it will be very important
to keep in mind both your national interests and the interests of NATO on a whole. I
encourage you to be active and intelligent with your crisis notes. While historical crisis
committees involve normal debate like any other Model UN committee, you will be
limited to information, technology, etc. that would have been available to your country in
1989. The more research you do, the clearer this will be and the better you will be in
committee. However, you should not feel any obligation to actually recreate the events
of the late 80s and early 90s as it happened in real life. You are allowed (and
encouraged) to take different approaches to problems both as a committee and as an
individual. The cool thing about crisis committees is that these different approaches will
have an impact on the committee’s world; in essence, you get to shape the path
committee will take!
It’s critical to the quality of the committee that all delegates accurately represent
his/her country’s interests. When the research you want isn’t available, you will need to
intelligently infer your own national motivations from the information that you do have
access to. As the conference date approaches, please feel free to email me with any
questions or concerns you have! I would be glad to help you out on anything pertaining
to the topic and our committee. I look forward to meeting all of you at the conference
this April!
Best wishes and Godspeed,
Lorenz Vargas, Secretary-General of Stuyvesant Model UN
[email protected]
Rules of Parliamentary Procedure
Given the fast-paced nature of crisis committees, this committee will run in
perpetual moderated caucus. On my discretion, we’re breaking with regular MUN
procedure in that there will be no set speaking time. Speak for as long as you like in
order to get your full point across. That said, should a delegate stray from the topic or is
just speaking for the sake of speaking, I will not hesitate to cut him/her off. Above all
else, I value substantive, intelligent debate.
Each delegate will be given a placard which he/she will raise to indicate to the
chair that he/she wishes to speak. Speakers will be chosen one by one from the
placards that are up. Points and motions will be taken in between speakers at the
chair’s discretion. Motions for unmoderated caucuses, round robins, and other
modifications to procedure will be accepted at the discretion of the chair.
All delegates must vote in procedural matters. A simple majority is needed to
pass procedural matters. Regarding substantive votes, reflecting the real-world North
Atlantic Council, committee-wide actions require a consensus in order to pass. In order
to pass, a proposal cannot receive even a single negative vote. Abstentions do not
count as a negative vote. Documents including but not limited to notes to the chair or
crisis, notes, directives, and press releases can all be passed to the chair in order to be
processed. Note that documents written before the start of the first committee session
and the usage of electronic devices are not allowed.
Position papers are expected from all delegates. The paper should outline your
country’s motivations, stances on key issues, and potential actions in committee.
Citations are recommended, but not required. The paper need not be long; a
double-sided page filled with good information will suffice. You can email position
papers to the chair’s email (​[email protected]​) at any time before the conference
begins or you can bring it in on the conference day at the start of committee.
All other matters of procedure will be addressed at the beginning of committee
session come April. That said, don’t hesitate to email me with any questions should
anything be unclear.
Historical Background
Timeline of Key Cold War events
1949
● April 4: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is founded by Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in order to resist
Communist expansion.
● May 23: In Germany, the Bizone merges with the French zone of control to form
the Federal Republic of Germany, with Bonn as its capital.
● October 1: Mao Zedong declares the foundation of the People's Republic of
China - adding a quarter of the world's population to the communist camp.
● October 7: The Soviets declare their zone of Germany to be the German
Democratic Republic, with its capital at East Berlin.
1950
● April 14: United States State Department Director of Policy Planning Paul Nitze
issues NSC-68, a classified brief, arguing for the adoption of containment as the
cornerstone of United States foreign policy. It would dictate US policy for the next
twenty years.
● June 25: North Korea invades South Korea. The Soviet Union cannot veto, as it
is boycotting the Security Council over the admission of People's Republic of
China. The UN, led by the United States, launches an intervention.
1952
● February 18: Greece and Turkey join NATO.
1953
● July 27: An armistice agreement ends fighting in the Korean War/
1955
● May 9: West Germany joins NATO and begins rearmament.
● May 14: The Warsaw Pact is founded in Eastern Europe and includes East
Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, and
the Soviet Union. It acts as the Communist military counterpart to NATO.
1956
● June 28: in Poznań, Poland, anti-communist protests lead to violence.
● October 23: Hungarian Revolution of 1956: Hungarians revolt against the Soviet
dominated government. They are crushed by the Soviet military, which reinstates
a Communist government.
1960
● June: Sino-Soviet split: The Chinese leadership, angered at being treated as the
"junior partner" to the Soviet Union, declares its version of Communism superior
and begin to compete with the Soviets for influence, thus adding a third
dimension to the Cold War.
1961
● August 13: The Berlin Wall is built by the Soviets following the breakdown in talks
to decide the future of Germany.
1962
● October 16: Cuban Missile Crisis: The Soviets have secretly been installing
military bases, including nuclear weapons, on Cuba, some 90 miles from the US
mainland. Kennedy orders a "quarantine" (a naval blockade) of the island that
intensifies the crisis and brings the US and the USSR to the brink of nuclear war.
In the end, both sides reach a compromise. The Soviets back down and agree to
withdraw their nuclear missiles from Cuba, in exchange for a secret agreement
by Kennedy pledging to withdraw similar American missiles from Turkey, and
guaranteeing that the US will not move against the Castro regime.
1963
● August 5: The Partial Test Ban Treaty is signed by the US, UK and USSR,
prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons anywhere except underground.
1965
● March 8: US military buildup to defend South Vietnam. North Vietnam has also
committed its forces in the war. US begins sustained bombing of North Vietnam.
1968
● August 20: Prague Spring Reforms in Communist Czechoslovakia result in
Warsaw Pact for Soviet Red Army to crush Czechoslovakian revolt
1970
● March 5: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified by the United Kingdom, the
Soviet Union and the United States, among others, enters into force.
1972
● May 26: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) agreement signals the
beginning of détente between the U.S. and USSR.
1973
● January 27: The Paris Peace Accords end American involvement in the Vietnam
War. Congress cuts off funds for the continued bombing of Indochina.
1979
● December 24: The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan to oust Hafizullah Amin,
resulting in the end of Détente.
1980
● August 31: In Poland the Gdańsk Agreement is signed after a wave of strikes
which began at the Lenin Shipyards in Gdańsk. The agreement allows greater
civil rights, such as the establishment of a trade union independent of communist
party control.
1981
● December 13: Communist Gen. Jaruzelski introduces martial law in Poland,
which drastically restricts normal life, in an attempt to crush the Solidarity trade
union and the political opposition against communist rule.
1982
● May 30: Spain joins NATO.
1983
● March 23: Ronald Reagan proposes the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or
"Star Wars").
● September 26: The U.S.S.R. nuclear early warning system reports launch of
multiple U.S.intercontinental ballistic missiles. Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov, an
officer of the Soviet Air Defence Forces, correctly identifies them as false alarms.
This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack based on
erroneous data on the United States and its NATO allies, which likely would have
resulted in nuclear war and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
● November 2: Exercise Able Archer 83 — Soviet anti-aircraft misinterpret a test of
NATO's nuclear warfare procedures as a fake cover for an actual NATO attack;
in response, Soviet nuclear forces are put on high alert.
1985
● March 11: Mikhail Gorbachev becomes leader of the Soviet Union.
● November 21: Reagan and Gorbachev meet for the first time at a summit in
Geneva, Switzerland, where they agree to two (later three) more summits.
1987
● January 16: Natives within the Party who oppose his policies of economic
redevelopment (Perestroika). It is Gorbachev's hope that through initiatives of
openness, debate and participation, that the Soviet people will support
Perestroika.
● June 12: During a visit to Berlin, Germany, U.S. President Ronald Reagan
famously challenges Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in a speech: "Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" (The Berlin Wall).
● December 8: The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is signed in
Washington, D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev. Some later claim this was the official end of the Cold War.
Gorbachev agrees to START I treaty.
1988
● May 15: The Soviets begin withdrawing from Afghanistan.
● December 7: Gorbachev announces in a speech to the United Nations General
Assembly that the Soviet Union will no longer militarily interfere with Eastern
Europe.
1989
● January 20: George H. W. Bush is inaugurated as 41st President of the United
States.
● February 2: Soviet troops withdraw from Afghanistan.
●
Present date → February 3rd, 1989
The Twilight of the Cold War: The New Status Quo
By 1989, the Cold War, a global ideological conflict between the world’s two
superpowers, had been going on for close to half a century. In that span of time, various
proxy wars were waged all across the globe from Korea and Vietnam to Latin America
and the Middle East. While neither NATO nor its communist counterpart the Warsaw
Pact could ever deal the decisive blow against the other in any of these proxy wars, the
Soviet Union, through decades of state mismanagement and domestic oppression, had
unwittingly fomented the awakening of a new, subversive political consciousness
among its own people. Soviet Satellite states have rebelled in the name of democracy
before as in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but never before have these rebellions
shown so much popularity or so much potential to succeed. Rocked by dissent within
and structurally unstable because of a botched Afghan adventure, chronic economic
stagnation, and corruption, the Soviet Union has never looked more vulnerable. In the
status quo, the Soviet Union faces violent uprisings in the Baltic Republics and the
Caucuses. Closer to Moscow, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators line Soviet
streets from Lviv in the Ukraine to Warsaw in Poland. In the face of growing outrage at
the Communist Party, it still remains unclear as to whether Secretary Gorbachev will
proceed down the road of limited democratization thus paving the way to full
democracy. It remains a distinct possibility that Gorbachev, strong-armed by hardliners
within the party, could follow in his predecessors’ footsteps and crush these uprisings
with the military. In the midst of all this existential uncertainty, analysts all over the world
are sure of one thing at least - the Soviet Union is going to be doing something drastic
and NATO will have to respond.
Questions to Consider
● Should NATO or my country interfere in the domestic unrest sweeping across the
Soviet Union? Or perhaps should it continue to watch how the situation develops
and focus on strengthening its borders?
● What actions can NATO or my country take to limit the bloodshed that might
erupt in the Soviet Union?
● How does NATO or my country feel about the other communist states in the
world such as China and North Korea and what role does the threat of Soviet
collapse mean to them?
● Should NATO continue multilateral talks with the Soviet Union to reduce nuclear
arsenals as well as conventional armaments? What does NATO or my country
stand to gain from disarmament?
● What should NATO do about East Germany? Is reunification the best option if it
is at all possible?
● What role does NATO play in a world without the Soviet Union? Should it
disband?
What is: The North Atlantic Council
The North Atlantic Council is the chief political decision-making body within
NATO. The Council, as it is commonly referred to, is a forum in which member countries
come to consult, discuss, and deliberate on matters that affect any member’s security.
Any policy that the Council outputs is deemed to be the collective will of the entirety of
NATO; this means that decisions in the Council are reached by consensus. The only
body established explicitly by the NATO charter, the Council has the power to create
subsidiary bodies as necessary. This power puts the Council at the top of the
organization’s hierarchy. It is the ultimate authority in a complex web that interweaves
the various political, security, intelligence, and military apparatusses of the Western
world. It should go without saying that whatever the Council does can only be reached
after serious deliberation on the part of all its members.
List of Committee Positions and Map
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
West Germany
How Crisis Committees Work
What’s a crisis committee?
Crisis committees differ from other Model UN committees by featuring a smaller
number of student delegates who assume the character of individual officials in
government instead of playing some faceless ambassador from Country X. Crisis
committees also have a much higher concentration of committee staff than other types
of Model UN bodies. It is the unique relationship between delegate and staffer in a crisis
committee that sets it apart from other bodies in Model UN. Crisis committees typically
consist of two parts: a committee room and a crisis room. In the committee room, a
Chair and one or more Vice Chairs will lead delegates in debate and procedural matters
among as they attempt to address the primary issue they are tasked with resolving. In
the crisis room, a second group of staffers focus their work on the “crisis” aspect of
committee. Led by a Crisis Director, these staffers introduce a number of planned and
spontaneous crises into the committee, which disrupt the normal flow of debate and
force the delegates to rapidly change gears in order to preserve the stability or safety of
their government, and occasionally their own character’s safety. In addition to the crises
produced by staff behind the scene, committee members may create emergencies of
their own by use of special powers and abilities delegated to their characters known as
“portfolio powers,” explained later on. Together the actions of delegates and staffers are
what make crisis committee a fun, fluid, and unpredictable way to participate in Model
UN.
What you do as a Delegate:
Within committee itself, one of your primary tasks as a delegate will be to give
speeches. Being a crisis committee delegate is a vastly different experience than much
of Model UN. Due to the small size of committee, delegates are expected to give
speeches every committee session. Speeches not only establish your position on the
record, but even the act of speaking can help to convince other committee members of
a delegate’s legitimacy and influence. It is highly recommended that crisis committee
delegates be comfortable with giving speeches often and at length if called upon by the
Chair or committee to do so. Although speeches are an essential part of what a
delegate does in committee, crisis actions are easily more than half the equation.
Directives, Communiqués, Press Releases and Crisis Notes are the tools you use
to solve the problems faced. What each of these four actions are and how they can be
used are explained below:
Directives:
Directives are the primary avenue of action in committee. They are written plans
of action or orders that are introduced to and then voted upon by the entire committee.
Unlike resolutions of General Assemblies, directives should try to be as to the point and
minimalist as possible. There are no citations of the UN Charter, no recognitions of
efforts to resolve the issue at hand, or appeals to the common dignity of man; just
orders. The simpler the directive, the less time it takes to debate, and the faster the
committee can find a solution to a crisis.
Communiqués:
Communiqués are messages sent from the entire committee to another outside
individual or group, which help to establish lines of communication relevant to delegates
in solving crises. These lines of communication may involve demands, requests for
assistance, negotiations. In committee, delegates may also use communiqués to
request a foreign functionary come and conduct a Q & A session with the committee, or
give summons for a subject expert, witness, or government official to appear before the
body for questioning. Like directives, communiqués are introduced in debate, then voted
on as a committee. Press Releases: Press Releases are very similar to Communiqués,
except that instead of sending a message to an individual, the committee prepares a
statement for the public. Because they are introduced, debated, and voted on as a
committee, press releases which are passed speak with the weight of the entire
committee and present the image of a united body.
Portfolio Powers & Crisis Notes:
Portfolio powers are the unilateral actions a delegate may take based upon the
duties, skills, and expertise on their character. Because they derive from the portfolio of
a character, these actions are intended to be taken without the approval or knowledge
of other committee members. When delegates have actions they wish to take that are
unlikely to pass as a committee directive, turning to portfolio powers can help some
delegates achieve on their own what they could not as a group. Granted, a delegate’s
position must actually entail the powers they are trying to enact and proper detail and
planning must be taken when requesting the use of portfolio powers, but otherwise they
are an open invitation for creativity in committee. If a delegate wishes to use a portfolio
power they think their character has, the proper procedure for doing so is through crisis
notes. These are pieces of paper which have the request written on one side, are folded
so that other delegates understand not to read the contents of the note, and have “To
Crisis” or “Crisis” written on a visible part of the paper. These notes are then passed
from the delegate’s seat to the Chair, where they will be collected by a crisis staffer and
addressed. Delegates will typically receive a response to their note which either a)
States that the action was carried out/is in progress/has resulted in X, b) The delegate
does not possess that portfolio power/the portfolio power request did not have enough
planning. Crisis will make a point to attempt to answer every portfolio power request in
writing or in crisis update. If a delegate feels that their crisis notes are not being
addressed, we highly encourage them to follow up with another note, as it is possible
that a note may not have reached the crisis room by accident.
Other Notes and Tips on Portfolio Powers and Crisis Notes:
1. Please write legibly. No matter how detailed and amazing a note is, it can’t be
implemented if it can’t be read.
2. Always sign your crisis notes in some way that allows crisis to identify the
sender. Character names are the most common, though if controversial notes
are intercepted and read by other delegates or exposed to committee, the sender
may be at risk. Establishing a code name with crisis is an acceptable alternative
to using a name.
3. Plan your crisis notes proportionally to the complexity of the action. Be sure to
write out the steps you would take in real life to ensure the plan doesn’t blow up
in your face.