SCMUN
2 0 1 4
!
World Disarmament Conference
Primary Issue: Controlling Rearmament
Efforts of 1930s
i. Preamble
Dear delegates,
As directors of the World Disarmament Conference, it is our pleasure to welcome you to
SCMUN 2014. We can assure you that SCMUN 2014 will be a fruitful three days,
providing you with unparalleled debate on a wide range of topics. Being a special
council, the World Disarmament Conference is one of the most exciting yet intricate
committees. This year’s Historical Security Summit brings the World Disarmament
Conference of the 1930s to SCMUN, and the council is bound to throw up some
interesting debate, especially as delegates would be able to make speeches as world
citizens of the 1930s era.
As Humanities students, we personally find revisiting past issues intriguing as it allows us
to make parallels and draw links to the present. This year, the topic for the World
Disarmament Conference is Controlling Rearmament Efforts of 1930s. With World War II
and its causes being a subject that has been studied and analyzed time and time again,
we now have a better understanding of the subject. Although the LON failed to achieve
disarmament at that time, with the research and better insight available today, it is
highly possible that we can come up with better solutions with regards to controlling the
rearmament efforts during the 1930s.
Arthur Ashe once said, “One important key to success is self-confidence. An important
key to self-confidence is preparation.” In order to maximise your experience at SCMUN,
and ensure the success of council debate, we truly hope that delegates would be
willing to prepare thoroughly for council sessions. Use this study guide to help you
along, and conduct your own research as well. We hope that you have a great time on
your quest for knowledge on the issue, and we look forward to seeing you in council.
Yours truly,
!
Melissa Lee (Head Director),
Kyla Ng and Anne Sim (Assistant Directors)
World Disarmament Conference
ii. Glossary
LON: Abbreviation for League of Nations, the main international governing body
equivalent to the United Nations
TOV: Abbreviation for Treaty of Versailles, a peace treaty signed at the Paris Peace
Conference between Germany and the other Central Powers, and the Allied Powers, led
by Britain and France, after World War I
Anti-Comintern Pact: An anti-communist pact signed between Germany and Japan in
November 1936, which was aimed against communist states
Washington naval treaty: Also known as the Five-Power Treaty. A treaty signed during the
Washington Naval Conference by the major nations who were the victors of World War
1, with terms agreeing to prevent an arms race by restricting naval construction.
Demilitarisation: To remove or forbid military troops, usually in a specified zone or area.
Disarmament: The act of laying down arms, especially in terms of the reduction or
abolition of a nation's military forces and armaments.
!
iii. Introduction to Issue
Having gone through the horrors of World War I,it is important that history does not
repeat itself, and that another World War should be prevented at all costs. As civil
beings, any differences between nations should be resolved diplomatically through the
newly created League of Nations.
!
Disarmament was seen as the most effective step in the desire to prevent another World
War and to establish peace in the 1920s. However, the LON has not manage to achieve
much success in this area thus far. On the contrary, successes achieved in disarmament
have been the result of individual major European powers, and not the League.
International relations were still being determined by powerful nations who acted on
their own. The failure to achieve disarmament not only meant that powerful countries
still had the military capacity for war, but that there was nothing to stop them from
engaging in conflicts with various other countries. There was a general unwillingness to
disarm due to the fact that the major powers did not trust each other, and also wanted
to ensure that they had the capability to defend themselves against foreign attacks and
conflicts, and to protect their own national interests and sovereignty. In addition,
countries which had the capacity to enforce disarmament efforts, such as Britain and
France, saw their own national interests as more important than those of the LON. Their
refusal to reduce their armed forces and reluctance to compromise meant that no
meaningful progress could be made by the LON towards disarmament. By the 1930s,
the inability of the powers to trust each other and work together towards disarmament
contributed to a general atmosphere of distrust and tension.
iv. Current Situation
Several attempts have already been made at disarmament in the 1920s. However,
countries, especially the major powers, were not cooperative, choosing to take matters
into their own hands. For example, the Locarno Treaties were negotiated by the major
European powers rather than the LON. The weakness of the LON meant that no
concrete solution could be enforced. With nothing being done about major powers
refusing to disarm, other countries followed suit. There was a general atmosphere of
distrust and tensions, further heightening the unwillingness of countries to disarm.
Other than the major powers, there were also many small nations that were a part of the
LON, including but not limited to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Albania, and more, all
reliant on the LON for protection. The LON has benefited them before, helping bankrupt
countries out of their financial crisis. However, while these small powers often attend the
conferences of the LON, including those centering around the topic of disarmament, the
small countries soon realised that they had little capacity to convince the more powerful
countries of their opinions. In reality, the conference system was dominated by the
major powers. Hence, the LON has a very narrow mindset, and decisions, including
those about disarmament,are being made based only on the major European powers
stance.
Furthermore, Japan renunciated the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 to 1922 because
they saw the agreed 5:5:3 ratio of ships for USA, Britain and Japan, a representation of
the West’s sense of superiority over Japan.
The Treaty of Versailles also has terms of disarmament. The German army was to
reduced to 100,000 tank with no tanks allowed. Their Navy was only allowed to have six
ships, and they could not have any submarines. They could not have an air force, and the
Rhineland area had to be free of German military. The Germans became angered
because originally, the major powers were also supposed to disarm, according to the
American president Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points. However, the major powers failed to
comply, and the Germans therefore did not see a reason for their own compliance of the
treaty.
With the tension between different countries and situations making them refusing to
disarm, something must be done in order for this World Disarmament Conference to be
a success and allow countries to reach a consensus.
!
The overall stances of each country is as follows:
!
Japan: Japan was undergoing a major paradigm shift at this time. The rise of nationalism
embodied in the Showa Restoration of the 1930s, as well as the rise of militarism, led to
the creation of an aggressive foreign policy. Japan felt the need to be considered a ‘firstrate nation’, and desired the prestige associated with claiming international territories.
The political affront they faced by Western Powers in the Paris Peace Conference,
Washington Naval Conference, London Disarmament Conference and the general
attitude of the international community to this Asian power bred in them strong desires
for national strength and military prowess. They also faced an economic downturn, as
most countries did after WWI, especially since Japan’s industry depended greatly on
foreign trade. Protectionism in USA, Britain and France exacerbated the issue, thus they
were greatly affected by the world-wide depression and this led to economic stagnation.
They also had overpopulation and needed to move into countries in Asia to ensure
sufficient supplies to maintain itself.
!
Germany: Led by Hitler at this point in time, who desired above all else to establish
Germany as a European military power after being angered and humiliated by the terms
of the Treaty of Versailles. They felt that it was unfair that they were the only country who
was forced to disarm. Originally, according to the US president Woodrow Wilson’s 14
points, other countries were supposed to disarm as well. However, this was not carried
out. The Germans were completely against disarmament as they felt this compromised
their national pride.They were the main aggressor in rearmament in the 1930s.
Britain: Being a leader of the League of Nations, Britain was expected to fulfill their
responsibility in enforcing disarmament in the 1930s. However, internal issues such as
the economic vulnerabiity after the Great Depression, and their self-interested attitude
in ensuring the security of their nation before the international community compromised
on their ability to enforce disarmament. After having its naval superiority threatened by
German naval armaments, David Lloyd-George, wartime prime minister of Britain,
wanted the German navy to be weak.
!
France: During the Great Depression of the 1930s, France started to face extremely high
rates of unemployment. Georges Clemenceau of the French government had one
priority in mind, which was to bring down Germany and ensure they could never start
another war. However, many other countries in the LON were not in agreement with this.
France wanted to make sure it would never again be threatened by the Germans.Being
a leader of the League of Nations, France had the moral imperative to see that
international security was maintained and that disarmament was enforced. However,
previous clashes with Germany of areas such as the Saar coal region and the Rhineland
led France to adopt an aggressive attitude towards Germany.
!
U.S.A: Felt that civilization was being threatened by the dangers of the machinery of
warfare then being maintained. He felt that countries should devote themselves to
abolish weapons primarily used for aggression. They felt that countries should only be
allowed the number of armed forces on the basis of necessity for internal order, and to
some extent, defense. USA was had little vested interest in the rearmament that was
primarily taking place in Europe. Furthermore, Woodrow Wilson’s desire for USA to aid
in the disarmament efforts was dampened by public pressure at home to practice a
policy of Isolationism. USA as a nation was unwilling to involve themselves in European
affairs, therefore, USA had this public demand to grapple with as well.
!
Italy: Often left out of major negotiations of the LON despite fighting for the Allies in
WWI. After signing the Triple Alliance with Germany and Italy in 1914, Italy fought for the
other side instead, but the US, Britain and France still distrusted them. It turned fascist
after the rise of Mussolini, and he introduced a “diarchy” (a nation led by two figures:
Mussolini and the king) .
!
Small Nations: Needed the protection of LON from aggressor states, as they had less
military might, and feared being annexed by countries such as Italy and Germany, who
were currently annexing Abyssinia and Czechoslovakia respectively.
!
v. Problems
There was a general unwillingness to disarm as it would make countries less able to
defend itself against foreign attacks and conflicts. Also, the major powers did not trust
each other and wanted to ensure that they had the capability to protect their own
sovereignty and national interests. Furthermore, countries which had the capacity to
enforce disarmament efforts, such as Britain and France, saw their own national interests
as more important than those of the LON, and were preoccupied with their own internal
affairs. Their refusal to reduce their armed forces and reluctance to compromise meant
that no meaningful progress could be made by the LON towards disarmament. For
example, countries were more worried about communist Russia than Germany, and
hence did not take immediate action when they began rearming. Furthermore, the
League of Nations was not truly united, and they were more concerned about their
internal issues at hand, due to the fact that WWI left lasting damages, and had
insufficient capability to deal with Germany and other aggressive states. Their attention
was divided and every government had a different opinion on which issue should be
dealt with first.
There was also the issue of divided attention. Even with the formation of the LON, there
was many problems within the League itself. The priorities of the various governments
were very divided, with the president of Britain concerned with dealing with the rising
communism in countries such as Russia, and the president of France insistent on taking
a extremely hard-lined stance in dealing with Germany. Hence, the major powers had a
division in their attention, rather than being united in preventing potential problems,
and enforcing disarmament.
vi. Direction of Debate
- In light of the fact that a main reason many countries are apprehensive towards
-
-
disarming, how can a balance be struck such that countries have the means to defend
themselves, yet would not be able to attack another country?
Seeing as both the Treaty of Versailles and Washington Naval Treaty had terms of
disarmament which Germany and Japan respectively saw as discriminatory, in what
ways could the major powers had been more balanced diplomacy in order to
encourage disarmament?
How were some of different treaties and agreements that were made responsible for
the tension amongst countries that made it almost impossible to convince them to
disarm?
What are some enforcements the League of Nations, or other international
organisations, could carry out in order to ensure that countries comply with
disarmament treaties?
What are some of the actions the major powers could have taken in order to prevent
distrust amongst countries from arising, thus allowing them to be less suspicious of
one another and more willing to negotiate peacefully terms for disarmament.
vii. Possible Solutions
- Possible Changes in Peace Treaties: Slight tweaking and editing of previous peace
treaties may be crucial in solving the problem or at least delaying it. Treaties such as
the various naval conferences and Treaty of Versailles might have been improved with
a different stance.
- Naval conferences : Negotiating arms limitations might help to reduce the force and
-
!
!
violence used. Some examples of naval conferences are the Washington Naval
Conference and the Geneva Naval Conference
Demilitarized zones: Disallowing troops or armies to be stationed at any strategic
locations such as borders of states
Division of airspace: Setting up airspace boundaries
viii. Further Research/
Bibliography
The World Disarmament Pact
http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/news/fashioning_future_history/pdf/
PANNEAU-1-385x116.pdf
The Washington Naval Conference
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/naval-conference
United Nations Office at Geneva: Disarmament
http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpHomepages)/
6A03113D1857348E80256F04006755F6?OpenDocument
Treaty of Versailles
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/versailles.htm
Treaty of Versailles
http://en.chateauversailles.fr/history/the-significant-dates/most-important-dates/1919the-treaty-of-versailles
League of Nations Archive
http://www.unog.ch/80256EE60057D930/(httpPages)/
775F57EE7B39FC0D80256EF8005048A6
1919
U.S.A’s stance on disarmament
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/disarm.htm
Germany’s stance on disarmament
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm
!
!