United Nations Historical Security Council 1949-50 President’s
Letter
Oakland University Model United Nations
March 3-4, 2017
Greetings delegates, and let me be the first of many to welcome you to Oakland University
Model UN’s 2nd High School Conference! It is my pleasure to serve as chair of this Historical
Security Council from 1949-50. I have been participating in Model UN at the collegiate level for
two years as a delegate, and have also chaired several high school conferences. Having been on
both sides of the dias, I am quite excited to listen to the productive and substantive debate in
which you are sure to engage. Additionally, I look forward to how each delegation will approach
each complex, historical issue. From 1949-50 the Security Council addressed numerous
international issues of immense importance, of which our issues, the Palestine Question, the
India-Pakistan Question, and the Situation on the Korean Peninsula, represent only a few.
Hopefully they pique your interest as they have mine.
While the Historical Security Council will generally follow the same rules and procedures as a
traditional Security Council, there will be several key distinctions in our committee. For a point
of reference, the Conference will begin on January 1, 1949 and tentatively conclude at the end of
the year, 1950. Periodically delegates will receive news updates of important global events. The
events on the news updates will reflect what occurred in 1949-1950 and can and will be affected
by the actions or the inactions of the body. Although this is a Historical Council, the body does
not have to follow historical decisions and alternative outcomes can occur. There is also the
potential for Crisis scenarios demanding immediate attention, which will be made clear through
news updates and by the Dias. I would also like to direct special attention to Article VIII of the
OUMUN Rules of Procedure, which outline the special rules for Security Council. In addition,
the Historical SC will include some observer states that can participate in debate but will not
have full voting privileges. Please familiarize yourself with all the rules. We plan on a brief
orientation at the conference, and can answer questions you may have.
While I am relaxed when it comes to chairing, meaning, among other things, that I realize it is
YOUR committee and you will handle issues as you see fit, I have three expectations for each
delegate, both in preparation and during the conference. First, you need to research and know
your country’s policy and position concerning every topic. Whether this is your first or your
fourth Model UN conference, you should be knowledgeable about the topics and your country’s
policies. These background guides are just the beginning of your research, so use the available
resources to gain further and specific insight into each issue. The Security Council (SC) website,
as well as the UN website, contains excellent information, including a database of SC documents
since the creation of the UN. Please learn how to use these resources and use them to your
advantage. My second expectation is that everyone is knowledgeable and comfortable with the
Rules of Procedure, including special procedures for the SC (e.g. use of directives that allow you
to take unilateral action, the ability to invite unrepresented delegations to speak and answer
questions). It is always disappointing to see a potentially strong delegate restricted by a lacking
knowledge of the rules. While mistakes are inevitable (I myself am not immune), please make
every attempt to know the rules and how to properly utilize them. If you suddenly feel as though
you don’t understand something during committee, by all means ask! By simply raising your
placard with a point of information or passing up a note to the dias, your Model UN experience
will be much more enjoyable than becoming lost, confused, and frustrated. My final expectation
is that every delegate speak during the conference. Whether on the speaker’s list or during a
moderated caucus, I expect everyone to be active. This SC will be run by you and your fellow
delegates. I do not speak about the topics, you do. The responsibility of keeping debate
progressing falls on your shoulders, not mine. I only serve to facilitate debate and maintain order,
so if you want to see solutions to the issues, find some and bring them up in committee!
Model United Nations is an excellent opportunity to learn about our increasingly globalized
world and understand how international issues are resolved among vastly different cultures. In
addition, this Historical Security Council allows you step back into history and reshape the very
events which marked the beginning of the Cold War. This is your chance to practice public
speaking, decision making, negotiating and compromise. My hope is that after the conference
you reflect on Model UN as an exciting educational experience. With that said, I look forward to
seeing you in March!
More information about each committee, rules of procedure, and policies for the conference can
be found at the conference website, https://oakland.edu/polisci/opportunities/model-unconference.
The India-Pakistan Question
In 1946, devastated by the economic and human cost of World War Two, the United
Kingdom and its colonial administrators agreed that India could no longer be maintained. The
British Raj which had ruled the entirety of the Indian subcontinent and Burma since the
eighteenth century was to be granted independence. However, the agreement amongst the British
government and its colonial administrators was a foregone conclusion as growing calls for
independence had dominated politics in the Raj for decades.1 Throughout the twentieth century
Mahatma Gandhi and his followers advocated for a unified pluralistic India comprised of both its
Hindu majority and its significant Muslim minority.2
However many in the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League
rejected the idea of a single nation for both religious populations. Instead leaders like
Muhammad Ali Jinnah argued for two separate nations for Hindus and Muslims.3 By late 1945,
political issues were compounded by reports of communal violence between Muslims and
Hindus in the provinces. In 1946, following a series of mutinies from within the Indian Navy, the
Labour Government of Clement Attlee sent a diplomatic mission to discussing a transfer of
power from the colonial administrators to a united India. However the discussions failed and no
agreement was reached.4 The only alternate plan for independence came on June 16 when British
officials, in agreement with the Congress and the Muslim League, decided to partition the Raj
into two independent countries: The Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India.
By the June of 1947 the parties agreed on a geographic partition, called the Mountbatten
Plan, which set the procedures for the partition of and independence for both countries along
religious lines.5 Muslim majority communities located predominantly in the Indus River valley
and the surrounding provinces became the Dominion of Pakistan. The Hindu and Sikh majority
provinces became the new Hindu India. Bengal was also be partitioned into the Muslim East
Bengal (West Pakistan) and Hindu West Bengal.6 The partition plan was not well received by
many Muslims and Hindus with violence erupting in many multi-religious communities.
Regardless of the violence the partition went forward. However, many of the lines drawn for the
new nations cut off large populations of Hindus and Muslims who found themselves in the
minority in their new countries respectively. In the three years since partition, millions of
Muslims and Hindus have been migrating across the borders of both countries to relocate into
both Pakistan and India, causing massive violence and displacement.7
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zpdqmp3#zs9w7ty
3
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pakistan/The-Muslim-League-and-Mohammed-Ali-Jinnah
4
Atlantic Article from 1946, uses outdated terms and parts are problematic. However, it still serves as a window
into a perspective from the time. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/india/306377/
5
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
6
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_01-03/chester_partition/chester_partition.html
7
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml
2
Under the partition plan the Princely States, relatively autonomous administrative areas
governed by local nobles, were also given the right to join either of the new nations. One of the
Princely States, Kashmir and Jammu, home to a large Muslim majority and smaller Sikh and
Hindu minorities declined to join either state. The Maharaja argued that to join either nation
would cause violence between various groups within the region. Muslims both in the new
Dominion of Pakistan and in Kashmir and Jammu were infuriated by the decision and a new
wave of communal violence and government crackdowns took place. In April of 1947,
disaffected Muslims in Kashmir and Jammu revolted against the rule of the Maharajah and
formed a provisional Muslim government that sought to join Pakistan. In order to receive
assistance from the Union of India, Maharajah Hari Singh joined the new Hindu nation. In
response Pakistan sent troops in an effort to secure the Muslim populations, starting the IndoPakistani War. Over the next two years the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan fought
over control Kashmir and Jammu. The conflict was made stranger by the presence of British
officers leading forces on both sides of the war in coordination with local Hindu and Muslim
militias and tribal forces.8 On January 20, 1948, The UN Security Council passed Resolution 39
which created the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to mediate and
investigate the conflict on behalf of the Security Council.9 Later that year, the Security Council
passed Resolution 47 which directed the Commission to meet with the governments of India and
Pakistan and help them restore order and organize a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir and
Jammu.10
The parties tentatively have agreed to a ceasefire in accordance with Resolution 47 and
meetings are on going in Karachi and at the Security Council to finalize the agreement and to
take additional steps in order to assure a lasting peace in the region. Despite the ceasefire other
issues remain unsolved. Millions of Muslims and Hindus from both sides of the borders are still
resettling and face violence. Even with the ceasefire in place, the plebiscite has not taken place
and troop withdrawals are ongoing. Additionally, Pakistan and India have yet to ratify
constitutions, possibly affecting religious and ethnic protections in their respective countries.
Finally, if the Republic of China falls the fate of Kashmir and the Indian-Chinese border may
again be thrown into dispute.
As delegates prepare for this conference, they should consider the following questions:
1. Does your country support the ceasefire? What additional steps would your
country like to see taken to prevent future conflict?
2. What can the Security Council do to deal with the resettlement of Hindus and
Muslims in India and Pakistan?
3. Is your country worried about religious and nationalist conflict within its own
borders? does the Partition and the Kashmir conflict set a dangerous international
example for sub-national groups who might consider independence?
8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1947_48.stm
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unipombackgr.html#one
10
http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml
9
4. What role does your country believe the United Kingdom should play in the
future of India and Pakistan?
5. What additional steps can the United Nations or other international actors take in
order to preserve security between India and Pakistan?
The Palestine Question
The Arab-Israeli Conflict can be traced back to the Balfour Declaration following World
War One and establishment of the British controlled Palestine Mandate under the League of
Nations. Under the Mandate of Palestine, the establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine was
recognized and recommended, along with the preservation of Arab religious and civil rights in
Palestine.11 While the British Mandate of Palestine recognized the national rights of non-Jewish
people, the Mandate and the Balfour Declaration were both explicitly concerned more with
Jewish peoples than Arab peoples in Palestine.12 At the same time British Foreign Minister
Arthur Balfour elicited the support of the Jewish community during WWI, the High
Commissioner of Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon also attempted to garner Arab favor against the
Ottoman Empire by endorsing independent sovereign Arab states across the Middle East,
including in Palestine.13 Between 1920 and 1945, both Arab and Jewish groups grew dissatisfied
with the British inconsistencies in governing the Mandate. European Jews began migrating to
Palestine in massive numbers beginning, especially during and after the Nazi Holocaust in the
1940s, overwhelming the Arab inhabitants. The British government banned Jewish settlement in
Transjordan in 1922, and limited Jewish migration to only 10,000 annually in 1939 frustrating
the Jewish community.14
In 1947, two years after being established, the United Nations General Assembly passed
resolution 181 in an effort to settle the question of government in Palestine.15 Resolution 181
terminated the British Mandate of Palestine and the role of governance was turned over to a
commission made up of representatives from the five permanent members of the Security
Council until governments could be established and elected. This resolution also called for the
partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The plan laid out by the General
Assembly, however, was rejected by Arab governments under the premise that it was not in
accordance with Article 1 of the UN Charter.16 The General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on
November 29, 1947, and civil war between Arabs and Jews in Palestine broke out nearly
immediately between Jewish forces and Arab Palestinian militias.17 The British failed to fulfill
their obligations under the resolution, citing the lack of support from both parties.
On May 14, 1948 the Independent State of Israel was declared hours before the British
Mandate lapsed at midnight.18 The following day Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt invaded
and attacked Jewish settlements. Hostilities intensified as increasing levels of Israeli arms and
migrants streamed into the country, beginning to overcome the Arab’s superior firepower. In
11
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1922mandate.asp
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/balfour.asp
13
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1915mcmahon.asp
14
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123668
15
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/181(II)
16
Morris, Benny. 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
17
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123668
18
Ibid.
12
response to the conflict between the new state of Israel and surrounding Arab states, the Security
Council passed Resolution 48 on April 23, calling for a truce between the belligerents and
established a commission to assure its enforcement.19 Throughout the duration of the first ceasefire, between June 1 and July 8, both Israeli and Arab forces violated the terms by improving
their positions and strengthening their forces. As the cease-fire drew to an end, the Egyptian
military prepared for a new assault, and the following day Israeli forces launched a simultaneous
attack against the Egyptians to the south, Iraq and Transjordan to the west, and Syria and
Lebanon to the north.20 The Israeli military forced the Arabs into defensive positions and
claimed the contested areas of Negba, Lydda, al-Ramla, and Galilee. A second truce was issued
by the Security Council, which was in effect from July 18 to October 15, and the UN Mediator in
Palestine, Folke Bernadotte, proposed a new partition of Palestine.21 This plan, however, was
rejected by both sides and Bernadotte was assassinated by Zionist militants, Lehi, on September
17. On September 22, the provisional Israeli government claimed all territory taken in the
conflict as part of the state of Israel.22
As of 1949, there has not been a substantial armistice agreement between the Israeli
government and its Arab neighbors. The United States, under the Truman administration,
actively supports the new state of Israel, as well as many Western European countries. 23 Arab
countries across the middle east oppose what they consider to be colonial aggression. The Soviet
Union initially supported the partition, however the Soviet position remains unclear due to its
history of pro-Arab policy. The Security Council is working to supervise future any armistice
and the resulting borders. Open warfare between belligerents has largely ceased, however it has
the potential to flare up again if a peace settlement is not agreed upon soon.
As delegates prepare for this conference, the should consider the following questions:
1. What are the terms of an armistice that your country would support? What actions would
your country take to secure or disrupt an armistice?
2. What is the relationship between your country and the countries involved?
3. What can the Security Council do to secure an armistice and end the conflict between
Israel and surrounding Arab countries?
4. What role does the United Nations and permanent members of the Security Council play
in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
5. How can the developing polarization between the Soviet Union and the United States
affect this situation? Vice versa?
19
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/48(1948)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123668
21
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/62(1948)
22
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/areajurisdictionpowersord.htm
20
23
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1948
-00-00&documentid=34&pagenumber=1
The Situation on the Korean Peninsula
The defeat of Japan in World War II brought an end to colonial rule in Korea. However,
the postwar aims of the new superpowers complicated the situation on the Korean peninsula. In
1945 the northern half would be occupied by Soviet forces, while the south would be under US
occupation.24 Without a natural border, the occupation zones were marked by a demarcation line
on the 38th parallel. Meanwhile, Soviet-style communism was fostered in the north under Kim-Il
Sung and a pro-American regime developed in the south. The newly-formed United Nations
would come to play a central role in mediating the evolving situation in Korea, beginning with
the withdrawal of Allied military forces from the peninsula. This role is emphasized in a General
Assembly Resolution 195 from 1947, which called for the occupying powers to withdraw their
military forces and the establishment of a unified Korea.25 In the same resolution the GA
established a new permanent UN organ to address the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the
United Nations Commission on Korea (UNCOK). UNCOK would represent the UN in Korea by
acting as an observer of military withdrawal and of democratic elections. While the UN had
already established the UN Temporary Commission on Korea (UNTCOK), the ongoing political
instability demanded that by 1947 a permanent body be established.
By 1948, the United States and Soviet Union had largely withdrawn their military forces
from the Korean peninsula. However, each superpower continued to ensure that a Korean
government under their influence would take power. The US chose to approach the UN to act as
a third-party observer to elections in southern Korea, where the majority of the population
resided and UNCOK was most present.26 The elections proceeded in 1948 and, with the consent
of UNCOK, were deemed legitimate and democratic elections. This allowed the establishment of
a formal government with a constitution in South Korea, officially proclaimed as the Republic of
Korea (ROK).27 Syngman Rhee, who sought US assistance, became president of the new
government. The creation of ROK only exacerbated the tensions along the 38th parallel since the
new constitution established the government’s mandate over the “whole of Korea”.28 In reaction
to this, the Korean Workers’ Party, the communist party in northern Korea, declared later that
same year the creation of the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) with Kim Il-Sung
as its leader.29 The goal of UNCOK for a peacefully unified Korea now appeared further from
sight by the end of 1948. Since each nation’s rhetoric called for unification under one ruling
ideology, the contest over the 38th parallel would begin to escalate. UNCOK played an important
role as an observer of the 38th to monitor any acts of hostility or arms build-ups.
During March of 1949, a North Korean delegation, headed by Kim, visited Moscow for
high-level talks with the Soviet government.30 Aside from concluding economic and cultural
agreements, Kim used this opportunity to discuss with Stalin his military aims for uniting the
24
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15292674
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/195(III)
26
Peter Lowe. The Origins of the Korean War 2nd ed. London and New York: Longman, 1997.
27
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15292674
28
Lowe. The Origins, 54.
29
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612
30
Lowe, The Origins, 58-9.
25
Korean Peninsula under communism. This interaction revealed the early war-planning by DPRK
and the complicity of the Soviet Union with Kim’s ambitions. Later in May, a series of major
border clashes began on the 38th. Both north and south looked to stoke unrest and political
instability. The biggest victim of this instigation was the Rhee government in ROK. Rhee’s
governance was marked by acts of authoritarianism, while the South Korean government
suffered from high-levels of corruption, poor economic activity caused by inflation, and ongoing
guerilla uprisings in the countryside with DPRK-leanings.31 This political weakness demanded
that the ROK look for an American assurance of protection. Rhee believed that US interests in
Japan and Taiwan would ensure the protection of South Korea.32 During 1949, American
interests in Asia dramatically increased when the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist forces under
Chiang Kai-shek) lost mainland China to Mao Zedong’s communist forces, who later proclaimed
the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC). With the Kuomintang forced to exile in Taiwan, the ROK
served as an important base for Chinese Nationalist activities.33 The two major security situations
in East Asia, Taiwan and Korea, would continue to parallel and in 1950 were both being
discussed by the UN Security Council.34
Tensions on the border continued into 1950 under the observation of UNCOK. The
Commission’s annual reports were vital for assessing the military capabilities of each country.
However, the peace was finally broken on June 25th, 1950 when forces of the DPRK crossed the
38th parallel into South Korea.35 The next day Kim Il-Sung appeared on North Korean radio to
declare that South Korea had initially launched an attack into the north, and the DPRK
counterattack was merely out of self-defense.36 The United Nation’s presence in Korea,
UNCOK, would be vital to identifying the aggressor. The UN Security Council now had to act in
the protection of the ROK and to restore peace to the Korean Peninsula, in addition to keeping
the US and USSR from the brink of war.
As you prepare for the conference, you should consider the following questions:
1. How did your country react to the North Korean invasion of South Korea? Did it support
the UN coalition fighting in Korea? What aid, if any, did your country provide the UN
force?
2. Did your country support a unified Korean peninsula? In what way, and under who, was
this to be achieved?
3. How did your country vote previously on resolutions regarding UN action in the Korean
Peninsula? What role did your country see the UN playing in Korea?
4. If a cessation of hostilities did occur, what would each party have to do in order to reach
a peaceful settlement?
31
Ibid, 65-7.
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/134/korean-war-origins-1945-1950
33
Lowe, The Origins, 70.
34
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/1873(SUPP)
35
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1950-korea-un1.html
36
Lowe, The Origins, 178.
32
5. Within the context of the Cold War, what alliances were important for your country’s
policy toward the Korean Peninsula? Where did your country lie between the East and
West divide, or were they part of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)?
Suggested Readings and Sources
1. SC Report to GA 1947-48
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/620(SUPP)
2. SC Report to GA 1948-50
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/945(SUPP)
3. SC Report to GA 1949-50
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/1361(SUPP)
4. SC Report to GA 1950-51
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/1873(SUPP)
5. SC Resolutions 1950
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/INF/4/Rev.1
6. SC Resolutions from 1946-today http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/
7. Useful primary source documents on origins of Korean War
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/134/korean-war-origins-1945-1950
8. Information on UN Command in Korea http://korean-war.commemoration.gov.au/armedforces-in-korea/united-nations-forces-in-the-korean-war.php
9. Lowe, Peter. The Origins of the Korean War 2nd ed. London and New York: Longman,
1997.
10. Stueck, William. The Korean War: An International History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1995.
11. Wada, Haruki. Trans. Frank Baldwin. The Korean War: An International History. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.
12. Morris, Benny. 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2008.