Historical Security Council (HSC)
VI Humboldt-MUN 2017
President: Carlos Pinto
Moderator: Fernanda Hinze
Conference Officer: Sophie Raimondo
Topic A:​ ​Conflict in Vietnam: Beginning of the American Intervention. (1960)
Topic B:​ ​Conflict in Palestine: Suez Crisis (1956)
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
A few words from the chair
Dear delegates,
Welcome to the Historical Security Council of the VI HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017. Our
committee has chosen two topics of great interest and importance to the
international community. Both topics are very broad, so we ask you to cling to the
timeframes established in the manuals to streamline the debate and reach to more
precise and elaborate conclusions on our 3 -day meeting. We are aware of the
amount of information that can be obtained on the subjects, so please deepen your
information of the events that concern your country. If there was any question about
the context, please write us an e-mail and we´ll be happy to answer as soon as
possible. Also, there´s the possibility for you to send the chair your handouts per
e-mail, to save paper and to ease the corrections.
We wish you all good luck with your preparations, we are looking forward to meet
you at the debate.
Sincerely,
Carlos Pinto Vázquez Mellado,
President of the Historical Security Council
E-Mail: [email protected]
1
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Delegates:
Our names are Carlos Pinto, Fernanda Hinze and Sophie Raimondo, and we shall
be chairing the Historical Security Council at this year’s Humboldt-MUN. We have
attended between ten and thirteen MUN conferences and one thing we have in
common is that our first MUN experience made us feel right at home as we finally
found a place where we could argue and reason all we wanted without anyone
plunking their hair out or jumping out the window.
We have won and lost, but for us this hasn´t only been an incredible learning
experience, but also something through we can ventilate our thoughts. We intend
upon cashing in on all opportunities to explore diverse cultures through this platform
because in the end, what really matters is that we get to know different people, make
some friends and build the capacity to withstand their opinions.
The Historical Security Council was tasked with ensuring international peace and
security. This place is incredibly heavy built on the shoulders of the delegates, but
also ensures that the debate is always heated with the political differences between
nations, often spilling out in the form some very personal arguments. It is always
one of the most testing committees and the topics selected for the Historical Security
Council this year have been set especially considering their politically diverse nature
and their impact on the world in history.
A word of warning though: hollow verbosity and high sounding rhetoric will never
silence voices of reason and true diplomatic character in the halls of Security
Council. We expect the delegates to come up with real solutions and truly show their
peers in the direction of ensuring the fact that effective new solution for those issues
are possible and solutions that could have changed the course of history.
Make your research, plan your strategies and if you have any queries or confusions
about the topics or the procedures, please ask. We will be more than happy to help
you out (​[email protected]​). We are looking forward to see you all and be
prepared to have an incredible time.
___________________
Carlos Pinto
President
___________________
Fernanda Hinze
Moderator
__________________
Sophie Raimondo
Conference Officer
2
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
The United Nations
Origins of the United Nations
The United Nations came into existence on 24 October 1945. On that day, the
United Nations Charter became operative, having been signed by the fifty-one
original members. The concept of all nations uniting together in one organization
designed to settle disputes peacefully was born of the desire of civilized nations to
avoid the horrors produced by the First and Second World Wars. The United Nations
developed as a successor to the League of Nations, which represented the first
attempt by nations to achieve this unity. The League failed in large part because the
United States never joined as a member.
In 1942, President Roosevelt first coined the term “United Nations,” when the
Declaration of the United Nations was signed by forty-seven nations in support of the
Atlantic Charter. In 1944, the United States, United Kingdom, USSR and China met
in Washington, DC at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, where the first blueprint of
the United Nations was prepared. In 1945, the final details for the United Nations
were worked out at the Yalta Conference. Fifty-one nations gathered from 24 April
through 26 June in San Francisco to draft the Charter of the United Nations, which
was signed on 26 June 1945.
Purpose of the United Nations
The primary purposes for which the United Nations was founded are detailed in
Chapter I, Article 1 of the Charter. These are:
1. To maintain international peace and security;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of
economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinctions as to race, sex, language and religion;
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends.
Introduction to the Committee
The Security Council was established by the Charter of the United Nations as one of
the UN’s principal organs ​on 17 January 1946​. It is considered to be the UN’s
executive organ and bears primary responsibility for maintaining international peace
and security. As testament to this, UN Member States are obliged to comply with
resolutions of the Council; in other words, the Council’s resolutions are binding. As
testament to the Security Council’s paramount position on security matters, the
3
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
General Assembly is prohibited from making recommendations with regard to a
situation or dispute that the Council is exercising its functions over, unless requested
by the Council.
Under the Charter, the Security Council’s powers of dispute resolution fall into two
broad categories. Chapter VI of the Charter provides for the Pacific Settlement of
Disputes. This includes calling on parties to resolve disputes peacefully (or
recommending means by which they may do so) and investigating any dispute or
situation to determine whether it is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council is able to
take action in response to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of
aggression. Upon determining that such a situation exists, the Council can
recommend measures to be undertaken. Such measures may or may not involve the
use of armed force. Along with the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the
Charter, this is generally regarded as the only other instance where States can
legitimately use force. This highlights the particular importance of the Security
Council in questions of peace and security. The Security Council also has a number
of other roles under the Charter including recommending new members to the
General Assembly and in the appointment of the Secretary-General and Justices of
the International Court of Justice (ICJ), demonstrating its broader organizational
significance. Along with the General Assembly, the Security Council also enjoys a
general power to request advisory opinions from the ICJ (whereas other UN
agencies can only request advice on matters within their remit).
In practice, the Security Council’s powers extend beyond the Charter. It has an
‘interpretive function’ in clarifying the meaning of various parts of the UN Charter. It
can also order peacekeeping measures under the so-called ‘Chapter Six and a half’
of the Charter.
Structure
The Security Council has 15 members. The five World War II victorious powers (or
their successor states) China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom
and United States of America hold permanent seats. They can also veto substantive
decisions, but not procedural decisions. While the wording of the Charter is
ambiguous, the Council has adopted the practice of treating abstentions as not
constituting a veto; hence to veto a resolution a P5 member must vote negatively.
The other 10 (initially six) members have two year terms and lack veto powers.
These members are selected by a General Assembly vote. Selection criteria include
contribution to international security and other organizational purposes as well as
equitable geographical representation.
In the Historical Security Council the mission of the delegates is to change the
course of history and to avoid mayor belic conflicts.
4
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Members (1955-1956)
Permanent Members
1. French Republic
2. Republic of China
3. United Kingdom
4. United States
5. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Non-Permanent members
6. Bolivia
7. Brazil
8. Ivory Coast
9. Checoslovaquia
10. Morrroco
11. Norway
Observers
12. North Vietnam
13. South Vietnam
14. North Korea
15. South Korea
16. Kingdom of Cambodia
17. Kingdom of Laos
18. Australia
19. New Zealand
20. Philippines
5
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Topic A: Conflict in Vietnam
General overview
The Vietnam War was one of the most disruptive and divisive conflicts of the 20th
century. The struggle for Vietnam dates back centuries, to when Vietnam was ruled
by its powerful northern neighbour China. Viet rulers regained control in the 10th
century and maintained their autonomy for almost 800 years. By the 19th century,
however, the tide of European colonialism was lapping at the shores of Vietnam. In
the mid to late 1880s French imperialists muscled their way into the region,
disempowered the Nguyen emperors and began to assert control. Vietnam was
transformed from a thriving kingdom based on community and subsistence, into a
colonial slave state focused on labour, production and exports. Vietnam remained
this way until World War II, when the country was overrun by Japanese forces and
French imperialism was replaced by its Japanese counterpart.
When the Japanese surrendered and withdrew from Vietnam in 1945, Vietnamese
nationalists led by Ho Chi Minh declared their independence. France, however,
moved to regain control of Indochina – helped by the backing of its Cold War allies.
The Viet Minh, a nationalist-socialist militia led by Ho Chi Minh, initiated a struggle
for Vietnamese independence that would last three decades. After the Viet Minh
defeated the French in 1954, Vietnam’s future was mapped out in the Geneva
Accords. The country was partitioned into two states: communist-ruled North
Vietnam and United States-backed South Vietnam. Elections to resolve Vietnamese
self determination and reunification were scheduled for 1956 but never eventuated.
In the late 1950s communist insurgents began attacking government targets in South
Vietnam. Despite waves of US-supplied aid, weapons and military advisors, the
situation in South Vietnam continued to deteriorate.
The Geneva conference adopted a similar approach in Vietnam. Vietnamese territory
would be divided temporarily into north and south, then given a road map to free
elections, self government, reunification and independence. But the plan hatched at
Geneva was undermined and sabotaged by a lack of support.
The country was partitioned into two states: communist-ruled North Vietnam and
United States-backed South Vietnam. Elections to resolve Vietnamese self
determination and reunification were scheduled for 1956 but never eventuated. In
the late 1950s communist insurgents began attacking government targets in South
Vietnam. Despite waves of US-supplied aid, weapons and military advisors, the
situation in South Vietnam continued to deteriorate.
6
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Background:
In October 1955, Bao-Dai was deposed as a result of a referendum, and the
Republic of South Vietnam was proclaimed with Ngo Dinh Diém as the president,
with support from the local latifundist oligarchy.
In assuming power, Diem announced that his government refused to hold elections
for reunification, with the argument that there would be electoral fraud because the
population of the North would not be free to express their desire. Nevertheless, the
Communist government of Hanoi proclaimed its firm intention to reunify the country
under his hegemony. The peace agreed in Geneva began to deteriorate and, by
January 1957, the International Commission created for the implementation of the
Geneva agreements had denounced violations of the armistice, committed by both
North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Throughout that year, communist sympathizers
who had migrated north after the country's division began to return to the South.
These activists constituted the Vietcong (abbreviation of Vietnam Con gsan in
Vietnamese, "Red Vietnam") and began to carry out sabotage against US military
installations, and in 1959 initiated attacks against the government of Diem. Military Interventions
Lets remember that during the Cold War, the United States hardened its policy
against the allies of the Soviet Union. It was until then, that in 1955-Dwight D.
7
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Eisenhower (US president) had pledged his firm to support South Vietnam through
an alliance with Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of the Republic of Vietnam.
That support materialized through equipment and training that the US military
provided to South Vietnamese security forces. This allowed Diem to crack down on
Viet Minh supporters living in the south, who were contemptuously called Viet Cong
(Communist Vietnam).
A vast persecution began, in which an estimated of 100,000 people were arrested,
many of whom were tortured and executed. In response, by 1957, the Viet Cong and
other opponents of Diem's ​repressive regime began to fight again. They attacked
government officials and other targets,
Later, in December of 1960, the various South Vietnamese groups opposed to Diem
(both communist and non-Communist) formed the National Liberation Front of
Vietnam known as “Viet Cong” (NLFV), to organize resistance to the regime.
Although the National Liberation Front of Vietnam claimed to be autonomous and
even though most of its members were not Communists, many in Washington felt
that the NLFV would be a puppet of North Vietnam.
For now the support of the United States has been only throu equipment and
training, no military actions has been taken, except for the Viet Cong.
A team sent by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to report on the situation in South
Vietnam advised the increase of US economic, technical and, of course, military aid.
The goal was once again to help address the threat of the Viet Cong. Kennedy
increased US aid, but failed to commit to large-scale military intervention.
What is the National Liberation Front?
Viet Cong, also known as the National Liberation Front, was a political organization
and army that operated in South Vietnam and Cambodia during the Vietnam War. It
was allied with North Vietnam and fought against the armies of South Vietnam and
the United States. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network
of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were
recruited in South Vietnam, but others were from the North. During the war,
communist leaders and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an
insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese
governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi. Although the terminology
distinguishes southerners from the northerners, the communist forces were under a
single command structure set up in 1958.
North Vietnam established the National Liberation Front on December 20, 1960 to
foment insurgency in the South. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were
volunteer "regroupees," southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the
Geneva Accord (1954), which ended the Indochina War between Vietnam and
France. Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South
along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The Viet Cong called for southern
8
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Vietnamese to "overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American
imperialists" and to make "efforts toward the peaceful unification".
Guide questions:
● Which one of the Vietnam's does your country support? Why is that?
● Was your delegation in favor or against the free elections in Vietnam? Do you
think they are prepared to make such a big decision?
● What has been the position of your delegation before the Liberation Fronts
intervention? Has your delegation taken any decisions on the matter since
then?
● Is your delegation in favor or against the American Intervention in the matter?
What should the international community do to stop/support the United
States?
● What can the Security Council do to prevent the conflict of 1960 from reaching
a major danger for the civils and be solved in the most peaceful way possible?
Links that might be very helpful for your research and position paper:
● http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/vietnam_conflict.asp
● http://thevietnamwar.info/was-vietnam-a-war-or-conflict/
● http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/asia_pac/05/vietnam_war/html/intr
oduction.stm
● http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/20/us/vietnam-war-five-things/
9
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Topic B: ​Conflict in Palestine: Suez Crisis
General Overview:
The conflict of Suez was a battle between France, Great Britain, Israel and Egypt. It
lasted from 29. October until the 6. November 1956. The cause was the
nationalization of the Universal Company of the Maritime Channel of Suez carried
out by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser on July 26th 1956. Anthony
Eden, the British Prime Minister underlined the danger for the oil supply coming from
the Persian Gulf and the commerce with the Far East through the channel of Suez.
Eden decided to overthrow the Egyptian president through the use of force. France
was also indignant by the attitude of Nasser and made an alliance with Great Britain.
Their goal: reclaim the Suez Canal.
Eden hoped for the United States support, but US President Dwight David
Eisenhower refused to use force to solve the conflict. The United States took
advantage of the delay caused by the slow military preparations of the British and
French forces and tried to promote a peaceful solution to the crisis, but their efforts
failed due to the impediments posed by Great Britain and France. Although
Eisenhower had denied his support, Eden was determined to take action against
Egypt. As the United States refused an alliance, France and Britain desperately
established an alliance with Israel, which had frontier conflicts with Egypt. Britain and
France launched an ultimatum demanding the cessation of hostilities on both sides,
withdrawal of troops 16 km away from the canal in twelve hours and consent for this
area to be occupied by Anglo-French forces. British solders embarked on the canal,
since the Egyptian government refused to accept the imposed terms, the British
bombed the Egyptian on the 31. October 1956 and destroyed their air force when the
deadline provided in the ultimatum was met.
Background:
In 1916, Sir Mark Sykes and Charles Georges Picot signed a pact called “the
Sykes-Picot Agreement”, were they decide to divide up the Arab territories of the
Ottoman Empire. This agreement is the beginning of the colonial hegemony between
Great Britain and France. The region was divided into five mandates under the aegis
of the League of Nations: Great Britain was assigned Palestine, Transjordan and the
Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. France was assigned to Lebanon
and Syria.
10
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
The problem in the Gaza strip
The beginning of the conflict dates back to the colonial period and to the rise of
nationalist movements in Europe and the Middle East. At the end of the nineteenth
century, while in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire nationalist movements
were born that demanded the self-determination of the native population by asserting
its Arab identity, in Europe arose Zionism, which sought the creation of a state in
which all Jews scattered throughout the world and saw in Palestine the ideal place.
After the Second World War, the partition of the Palestinian territory and the creation
of two states, one Arab-Palestinian and one Jewish, was proposed, a decision that
the Arab countries did not like.
In May 1948, Jews created the State of Israel, which provoked the first major
confrontation, with the military intervention of the Arab States to support the
Palestinians. Israel resisted (a large part of the Palestinians had to leave the
territory) and expanded the area beyond its planned partition plan. The Palestinian
territories of the West Bank and Gaza would be under control of Jordan and Egypt
respectively; The creation of an Arab state in Palestine was frustrated, and the city of
Jerusalem was divided.
The conflict in Gaza emerged in 1949, when the territory occupying the strip was
established in the peace agreement signed after the Arab-Israeli conflict started a
year earlier. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt declared war on the newly
created State of Israel. After 15 months of fighting, more than a million Palestinians
ended up in Gaza.
In 1956 occurs the crisis of the Suez Canal or the War of Suez, that explodes in
Egyptian territory. Israel, Britain and France allied with Egypt for the nationalization
of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.
The importance of the Suez Canal
The Suez Canal is an artificial navigation route linking the Mediterranean Sea and
the Red Sea. It is found between the continents of Africa and Asia through the
11
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
isthmus of Suez, in the Sinaí peninsula. The construction of the canal began in 1859,
promoted mainly by the French Ferdinand de Lesseps, who managed to obtain from
the Egyptian governor Said Subí the concession for the construction of the Canal.
The Canal's operations began in 1869. Under the agreement signed between the
French and the Egyptians, the Canal should be transferred to Egyptian control in
1968, or twelve years after Nasser's "anticipated" nationalization. In 1875 the
Egyptians were forced to yield their shares in the Channel Company to the British
Crown. As a result, Britain took 44% of the shares and became its true owner,
administering and collecting the substantial payments (the right of passage through
its waters) leaving the French and particularly the Egyptians aside. During the 19th
century, Egypt contributed almost half of the capital needed to carry out the works of
the Canal and most of its workers who were building it were of Egyptian origin. The
peasants (Falajin) recruited for the works were the worst paid and had to carry out
the hardest works. In 1924, despite the independence of Egypt, the channel
remained in the hands of Great Britain. Between 1945 and the withdrawal of tens of
thousands of British soldiers in 1956, British-Egyptian relations gradually
deteriorated.
In July of 1952 a “coup d'etat” takes place overthrowing the king Faruk of the power,
movement mainly headed by the young military Gamal Abdel Nasser, who
proclaimed the republic and replaced the pro-western policies of the monarchy for a
new policy close to the socialism. He called it an Arab socialist nationalism, which
unleashed an anti-imperialist campaign. Together with the nationalization of the
Canal, Nasser ordered the blockade of the straits of Tyran, the access road to Eliat,
which was the main Israeli trading port in the Gulf of Aqaba, which allowed it to
communicate with the markets of Southeast Asia across the Red Sea and Indian
Sea.
The military intervention
Israeli troops invaded Sinai on October 29 in 1956 and moved quickly to the Suez
Canal. The Egyptian troops couldn´t defend themselves for long.
The reasons for the Israeli intervention were:
● A response to repeated attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinian troops under
the name of Fedayun.
● Guarantee the free navigation of Israeli vessels in the Suez Channel and the
Red Sea.
● The capture of a Fedayun command in the Erez region along the border of the
Gaza Strip. According to the Israeli pro-government daily Lamerjav (30
October 1956), the command composed of four combatants, who were on
their way to Israel to carry out "acts of sabotage and terrorism ". It was
actually four Israeli soldiers, born in Arab countries, who were dressed and
12
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
equipped as Palestinian fighters and were discreetly released a few days after
the Israeli offensive at Sinai began.
The news was published at the same time as Britain and France issued a statement
demanding the withdrawal of Egyptian and Israeli troops from both sides of the
Channel and a ceasefire in the next twelve hours. Considering that Israel was allied
to these two countries, its answer was affirmative whereas Egypt refused to accept
the ultimatum. As a result, British and French troops entered combat, occupying the
Suez Canal and bombing Egyptian military installations. The Anglo-French
intervention was made without a mandate from the United Nations, and taking
advantage of the element of surprise for the United States and the Soviet Union.
In response to the triple attack, troops withdrew from the Gaza Strip (which
according to the United Nations resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 should be
part of the Palestinian state that was never created) and the Sinai. But at the same
time ships were sank and obstacles were placed which made the crossing of the
Suez Canal impossible for many months. The international situation was complicated
in a matter of days by the offer of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of
China to send volunteers to fight along with the Egyptian troops, the interruption by
Syria of the oil flow that circulated by the pipeline drawn between Iraq and Israel and
veto the motions for resolutions in the Security Council of the United Nations.
What happened with the territory and the countries that are involved?
After Nazzer (president of Egypt) decreed the nationalization of the Suez Canal,
Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt on October 29, 1956. Given the
seriousness of the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council met in an
emergency session in which it was agreed to require the invading countries to
withdraw from Egypt.
13
VI-HUMBOLDT-MUN 2017
Historical Security Council
Under pressure from the United Nations and without US support in this conflict, the
English and French troops withdrew in December 1956, so that the Canal Zone was
under United Nations surveillance. This failure of the Western powers in the Middle
East resulted in the benefit of the Soviet Union, which took advantage of the situation
to intervene in the politics of this troubled region by providing Egypt with economic
and military assistance for the construction of the Aswan Dam, Nasser's position was
strengthened.
Unsurprisingly, the United States government soon intervened to counter Soviet
dominance. In early 1957 the Eisenhower Doctrine was enacted, implying a program
of economic and military assistance offered by the US government to the countries
of the Middle East.
That same year, this program was adopted by Lebanon, Libya, Turkey, Iraq, Israel,
Tunisia and Sudan, that allowed the United States to participate in the conflicts that
occurred in the region. In this way, the Arab-Israeli conflict was a further factor of
discord between the two blocs, threatening world peace whenever animosity once
again gained momentum in the face of renewed attempts by the Palestinian peoples
to reclaim territories given to Israel In 1948.
At the height of Nasserism, the difficult situation between the Arab States and Israel,
stabilized in 1957, deteriorated again in 1962.
Guide questions:
● Does your delegation get profits from the oil transported by the Suez Canal? If
so how important are they to your delegations economy?
● What is the position of your delegation in the Gaza Strip conflict? Why and
what actions has your delegation taken on this matter?
● What has been the position of your delegation before the Egyptian and Israeli
doings? Has your delegation taken any decisions on the matter?
● What is your delegations position on Palestine?
● What can the Security Council do to prevent the conflict of 1956 from reaching
a major danger for the civils and be solved in the most peaceful way possible?
Links that might be very helpful for your research and position paper:
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=37
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d637
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v09p1/d71
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/26/newsid_2701000/2701603.st
m
https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-9.2.4-Sykes-PicotAgreement.pdf
14