HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY PAN-AMERICAN MODEL UNITED NATIONS HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY Suez Canal Crisis ( )

Transcription

1 PAN-AMERICAN MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2015 HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY Suez Canal Crisis ( )

2 Dear Delegates, Both my co-chair Alessandro Bomcompagni, and I, Daniel Ortuño, would like to welcome you to Pan- American School Model United Nations Conference of We are both aiming for the fulfillment of the delegate s expectations as well as providing a high level committee within the conference. This year s goal is to implement the use of historical councils with the purpose of successfully rearranging in a realistic manner the course of international history, experimenting with the worst and most influential conflicts of the XX Century. This innovation focuses on preparedness and the development of analyzing and debating skills as well as an increasing awareness of the past, achieving prosperous proposals and possible solutions for future crises. Since 2012 as a sixth grader at Pan-American School, I have attended MUN conferences in Costa Rica as well as my co-chair. Therefore, we understand the curiosity and potential concerns existing within the fellow delegations. Moreover, we commit to answer any possible doubts immediately to guarantee the delegate s accurate preparation for the committee. A broad perspective will be addressed in order to provide a better understanding of the topic being discussed, directing the council to a successful and fruitful debate with diversity in countries opinions, proposals, and actions. This year s conference has designated the Suez Canal Crisis (1956) to the Historical General Assembly, considering the topic is of vital importance and relevance when addressing the issues generated during the unarmed conflict between Western Nations and the Soviet Union. Also, it includes the non-aligned countries forced into the issue. This vulnerable area was a major scenario for conflict due to its strategic position at the Sinai Peninsula (separating Europe, Africa, and Asia) and as the name mentions a canal that connects the three continents and allows economic and diplomatic facilities and development. Nevertheless, some countries positioned at the Western Bloc felt threatened by the attempts of Egypt to nationalize the canal, which led to a major armed conflict, invasions, and a ridiculed attempt for peace. Please feel free to contact both my co-chair and me to our s if you have doubts, concerns, recommendations, or any possible discomfort. We encourage delegates not only to come prepared but also willing and eager to learn as well as relate with other people. Once again, we welcome fellow delegates, faculty advisors, and other invitees to join in order to surpass expectations, and arrive to a consensus that will guarantee the progress of the individual and his or her skills. 1 Sincerely, Daniel Ortuño Chair daniel.ortuno@panam.ed.cr Alessandro Bomcompagni Co-Chair alessandro.bomcompagni@panam.ed.cr 1 Please excuse some variations in the formatting of the document given to some technical failures.

3 Introduction The Historical General Assembly in the Pan- American School Model United Nations Conference 2015, will address the crisis of the Suez Canal in 1956, or also referred as one of the armed conflicts consequence of the Cold War (unarmed rivalry between Western and Soviet ideologies). The committee is directed towards the analysis of the situation in the Sinai Peninsula from each country s viewpoint, whether it was influenced by an alignment, or an economic and political interest. On the other hand, the purpose of the council is to aim for a negotiation and consensus that remains beneficial for the parties and their opposition, depending once again on the governmental and international community s concerns. Furthermore, the commitment towards a peaceful or at least an effective solution and accurate proposals to other organisms present in the United Nations has been acquired. This has the sole purpose of maintaining a predominant decision on the international scenario and potential avoidance of future crises. The origin of the crisis was in the XIX (nineteenth) Century or more specifically, 1869, after the Suez Canal ended its construction under the French Government and Ferdinand de Lesseps. The major motivation for the task was the necessity of major global leaders to transport goods from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, instead of pursuing massive investments to use the route surrounding the African Continent. In other words, the solution would decrease economic expenses and would develop adequately the international economy. Nevertheless, major opposing nations, such as Great Britain, feared French control of the canal, which resulted in a strategic position of the canal as well as the benefits previously mentioned. A series of treaties were negotiated by the international community. According to the Constantinople Convention of October 29 th, 1888: The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag. (parr. 1) Regardless of its specialized function, the treaty called upon the attention of nations whose interest remained in using or acquiring the canal. Nevertheless, the issues were briefly interrupted after Egypt was declared a sovereign nation in the XX Century (1922), which would guarantee security to the country s population. However, soon after achieving independence from the British, the Egyptians committed a series of acts (e.g. claiming Sudanese sovereignty) that enraged Great Britain s government. The French, not being directly involved or being the protagonist in this crisis, remained interested in what happened due to political and economic affairs. Regardless of historical affairs that led to European interventions in the area, the issue was centered on a conflict between Egyptian and Israeli religious ideologies, which since the creation of the Israeli State, have angered neighboring countries. On the other hand, before the tripartite invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics threatened to act if the Egyptians were attacked; this action was motivated by the nationalization of the canal (opposed

4 by Western governments). On the other hand, countries such as the United States approved the use of negotiations rather than military interventions in the Middle East, and was followed by other nations. The purpose of the committee is to find alternative solutions for the conflict that do not aim for a temporary approach but rather an immediate and permanent response in order to grant stability and prosperity to the area. The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 required support and accurate proposals made by delegations in order to avoid more casualties in one of the worst invasions after World War II. Cultural, political, economic and religious differences led to an armed encounter between Egypt, France, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Israel, among others, which separated both politically and socially the population, increasing nationalism and extremism in each one. The main goal remains to find an alternative solution that may provide well-being to the population of the moment, as well as peaceful diplomacy and subsequent avoidance of further conflict. History of the Committee The General Assembly represents one of the most influential committees formed by the international community after the decline of both Germany and Japan during World War II in an effort to provide peace to the population. According to the United Nations (n.d.), The General Assembly (GA) is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN. (parr. 1). In other words, its responsibility relies on the collaboration of all the members of the organization in order to aim for foreign amity. On the other hand, the same product of internal distribution is categorized by three specific aspects that define its function within the body which include, jurisdiction on military issues, international law, and main functions. Before the General Assembly was established, failed attempts of creating a medium for consensus were made. At first, European Nations addressed several of their sociopolitical issues with dialogue, ranging from the repartition of colonies to the Treaty of Versailles. On the other hand, the League of Nations proposed by the United States of America and its representative Woodrow Wilson, deteriorated and was later aborted even though its initial entrepreneur did not participate in further negotiations. Nevertheless, countries of the international community decided that another major conflict involving the use of lethal weaponry was to be halted before devastation was observed. The internal organization of the United Nations was formed approximately in 1945, with the unique reason of avoiding subsequent violence across diverse areas of the world. In other words, it utilized this avoidance of conflict and potential crises in order to organize political leaders into a sole group of peaceful resolutions. The same was sponsored by a group of five different countries that fought in the side of the Allies during the Second World War, being France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the

5 Popular Republic of China. Nevertheless, the organization had with fifty one (51) original members, which included the five founders and others such as Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, among others. Throughout time however, other members were subsequently added as they were recognized or if there was an interest. For example, between 1955 and 1956, the assembly accepted the membership of Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Finland, Italy, Spain, Japan, Sudan, Tunisia, among others, nearly ten years after the organism s foundation (after World War II). According to the United Nations (n.d.), the General Assembly possesses the specific attributions and may consider acting upon the following situations: ( ) Consider and approve the United Nations budget and establish the financial assessments of Member States; Elect the non-permanent members of the Security Council and the members of other United Nations councils and organs and, on the recommendation of the Security Council, appoint the Secretary-General; Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament; Discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council, make recommendations on it; Discuss, with the same exception, and make recommendations on any questions within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations; Initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international political cooperation, the development and codification of international law, the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and international collaboration in the economic, social, humanitarian, cultural, educational and health fields; Make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among nations; Consider reports from the Security Council and other United Nations organs. ( ) (parr 6). One of the most important restrictions established upon the General Assembly is that of intervening militarily without the Security Council s consent. Notwithstanding, a United Nations Resolution approved the intervention of the General Assembly if the council highest in authority did act accordingly

6 or adequately. These protocols were called Special Emergency Sessions, which was first tried during 1956 in order to discuss and subsequently act upon the Suez Canal Crisis. The past statements describe and explain the development of the organism since the foundation and until the crisis to be discussed, counting with the mentioned protocols and attributions. History of the Problem The Suez Canal (17 th November, 1869) was built as a mechanism that would connect the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea via the branches of the Nile River in Egypt. It is believed to be the shortest link between the east and the west due to its unique geographic location (Suez Canal Authority, 2008), being as it serves as an international navigation route. Further on, it has been considered as the first artificial canal used in trading and traveling, with an extension of 160 kilometers. In 1875, the British purchased the shares from the Canal owned by the Egyptians given their external debt, nevertheless, France continued to hold a majority. By 1888, when the Convention of Constantinople was signed, and according to Article I, the canal was opened to embarkations regardless of the nation that would send them. The Convention further stressed the route as being able to be utilized in times of both peace and war. In this same Article, it is stated that the Canal shall never be subject to any blockades. This Convention consisted of a treaty signed by Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Austro-Hungary, France, the Netherlands, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia on October 29 th, When the announcement of independence of the state of Israel was given in 1948, war broke out when the five Arab nations took into their hands to invade the former territory of Palestine, under Egyptian command. Trained troops from Transjordan, continued to enter the war in the areas designated as part of the Arab state under the United Nations Partition Plan and the corpus separatum of Jerusalem (US Department of State, N-D). After the UN was able to administer two cease-fires, the fighting continued on to 1949, and Israel did not reach a formal armistice until February. The British still considered the canal a vital method to maintain both their colonial interests and maritime power, being this the main reason for the creation and signing of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty (1936). In this document, Great Britain was allowed to maintain a defensive force, in order to protect their interests along the zone of the Suez Canal. However, in 1954, both countries signed a seven-year agreement that superseded the 1936 treaty and provided for the gradual withdrawal of all British troops from the zone (Suez Canal Authority, 2008). It proceeded to be under the control of both countries until it was nationalized in 1956 by the Nasser.

7 Regardless from not being within the time frame of the conference, an explanation of the actual outcome is provided. After the tripartite invasion of Egypt carried by the British, French and Israelis in 1956, the canal was closed. Nevertheless, it reopened to navigation in Said assault was motivated by the rage of these three countries towards the decision announced by president Gamal Abd El Naser, the nationalization of the canal. Years later, in 1967, while Egypt was at war with Israel, the canal was once again closed, and only reopened in 1975, after both parties signed the second disengagement accord. Statement of the Problem Since the late 1800's the property of the Suez Canal has been negotiated and the rules of the area have been in constant change. The United Nations, a recently formed organization, has started to discuss international conflicts between countries that had to be involved in this crisis that was happening with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. We are right now under the emergency special session weekend and we need to address this problem with extreme caution. These countries, since they have been fighting for this canal, cannot be allowed to let them solve this problem by themselves so international actions need to be taken to get a resolution. Current Situation The nationalization of the Suez Canal on Egypt s behalf seemed to be an international offense to three major parties: the United Kingdom, France, and Israel. On October 29, Israeli forces entered the Suez Canal area after being directly threatened by the decisions achieved by Egyptian parties. Soon after, on October 31, both Great Britain and France invaded the area to form a tripartite union of countries with the aim of gaining once again the economic and geographical benefits of the canal. However, these series of invasions had no legitimate background or collaboration of the United Nations or any other international organism. (The Guardian, n.d.). The Sinai Peninsula has now been taken over by the tripartite forces and military troops through unlawful movements within the designated territory. Notwithstanding, both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, have shown disagreement towards the military actions the north-african country has been forced to endure. This has caused an imminent rise of an international and diplomatic crisis that has led to the impossibility of collaboration among nations. Tensions are also reducing the pace of the process of arguing for a resolution accepted by a majority.

8 Bloc Positions The current escalating crisis in Eastern Europe, specifically Hungary, has caused countries to enforce their influence on the newly started Arab- Israeli conflict. The Soviet Union was dismayed by these actions and threatened to dictate military actions not only in the Middle East but also within the European Continent. The international community has requested through the Security Council to demand a ceasefire through immediate decisions, reestablish the secure freedom of navigation through the Canal, and force the removal of foreign and illicit troops in the Sinai Peninsula. The lack of support on behalf of veto powers reduced the trustworthiness of the Security Council. Therefore, the crisis was given to resolve to the General Assembly, providing powers to override the Security Council. The conflict has two possible outcomes: an intensification of instantaneous military actions and a subsequent hazard to non-aligned countries, or a resolution to the economic and political interests through peaceful diplomacy. The Soviet Union or the USSR experiences a relative period of stability regardless of the lack of support of their ideologies from Western nations such as the United States due to the aim for Communism. The United States refused to provide economic aid to the Egyptian government for infrastructure and military strength given the actions of the USSR in Czechoslovakia. The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, viewing the acts as strategies to spread influence, agreeing to support with weaponry and financially, the Egyptians. When the country nationalized the canal and subsequently forbid Israeli cargo ships, its allies decided to invade Egypt in a tripartite military operation. The Soviet Union disapproved these movements and was even prepared to aim for a halt of the invasion with missile launching, military actions, diplomacy, among others. The United States of America has had a major impact on the area of the Middle East, by political and economic media, and therefore, an increasing influence on the area during the escalating tensions with the Soviet Union. Their major beliefs were centralized in expanding the sphere of influence towards the Middle East, yet it condemned the nationalization of the Suez Canal because of the lack of commercial benefits it would provide to its allies such as France and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the position to aim for a peaceful solution through both international law and the United Nations jurisdiction was strengthened. In other words, the government neither believed the lack

9 of military forces would result catastrophic nor would Nasser s control of the Suez Canal and the Sinai Peninsula. The major plan was to halt and produce a lack of momentum to the illicit invasion that had violated another country s sovereignty. French Republic France on the other hand, was a major participant during the invasion of the Suez Canal in Egypt. One of the major reasons of why this republic remained in a state of being threatened directly by Nasser s plans is the company who had aimed for the creation of the Suez Canal, which was French. Notwithstanding, the government-led actions with Guy Mollet as Prime Minister, called the actions of the Egyptians as a breach of international law, but also as a direct attack on the country's prestige and economic interests. (BBC, n.d., parr. 28). On the other hand, the Algerian War due to colonialist methods in Africa, was causing major concern among the French government officials, a motive to regain the Sinai territory and with it, the economic and political benefits of the canal. These people also observed Nasser as a supporter of Arab Uprisings in Northern Africa and the Middle East, a reason of why he had to be controlled according to them. At last, the loyalty to the Israeli State was a major cause for the military interventions in the Sinai Peninsula, as it was viewed as strategic and a benefit to the European countries and specifically France and the United Kingdom. United Kingdom Great Britain, specifically during the XX Century, had undergone a variety of progress in both economic and political manners. However, imperial beliefs were also persistent among their diplomats. This ideology had as a product the belief of at least possessing control of strategic areas in the Middle East in order to boost the economic prosperity of the country. When Churchill was no longer the Prime Minister, Eden took place as a successor while introducing these ideals. Subsequently, when the Egyptian government felt threatened by Western countries or had resentment against their lack of economic aid, they pretended to control the Suez Canal Crisis. However, the African country nationalized the canal, becoming the control center of navigation, taxation, among other aspects. These provocations caused a desire for military interventions and the lack of willingness to negotiate through peaceful diplomacy within the international community. Conservative ideologies were maintained and soon caused the invasion of the Sinai Peninsula and their lack of collaboration to launch a ceasefire and removal of their militia. (The Economist, 2006). Israel Israel has already been facing guerilla attacks along its border before the crisis developed. To face these threats, as they believed them to be,

10 the reactions consisted of harsh retaliatory attacks in the Gaza Strip, which was under Egyptian control, and West Bank, which was under Jordanian control. The chief-of-staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Dayan, acted as the protagonist of the proposal for these retaliation attacks to be harsh, as a response of the infiltration through Israel`s borders directed by Arab states. Dayan`s main belief focused on how ferocity would become a warning for any countries involved. After Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and deployed troops along the Israeli border, Dayan desired to develop a preventive war against the measure they saw as offensive. (The Economist, 2006). Egypt The Egyptian government was the major participant of the Suez Canal Crisis of the Sinai Peninsula. In the past, the North-African country had been governed by British Imperialism, as seen by locals and nationalist forces. However, Egypt had gained its independence and gained a major part of a collaboration from the Soviet Union. The head of state in 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser, had observed the lack of collaboration of Western countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the renovation of infrastructure within the country. Therefore, after achieving support and foreign aid from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the president decided to nationalize the Suez Canal and prohibit Israeli transit or navigation through the same construction. This extreme solution proposed by the government, altered negatively the perception of both Great Britain and France, who agreed to invade in a tripartite union to support the Israeli State. Questions a Resolution Must Answer 1. How can the United Nations ensure a peaceful resolution in the area? 2. How will the resolutions address this problem in economic, cultural, and political development? 3. Is the council requiring the intervention of Non-Governmental Organizations? What would the role of these be? 4. In what order is the resolution going to be completed? What short/long term policies will be applied? 5. Should the UN interfere with immediate actions? If so, what kind of immediate actions should be taken? 6. Should this conflict be addressed with heavier importance? Why? 7. What actions sould be considered given the participation in an emergency special session within the General Assembly? Conclusion Other generations of the past have not given an accurate solution or importance to the issue being

11 discussed. However, Suez Canal, as mentioned previously, have increased both in size and levels of concern in the international community. It is important that the issue is solved with an immediate response in the proximate years so this conflict can finally be terminated. We firmly believe that the future debate will produce both a consensus and viable solutions in order to react and address the problem. Collaboration of the different countries, as seen in the United Nations, solves issues in a peaceful way. We want our delegate to have a great experience in this council and a powerful and inspiring debate. References 1956: Suez and the end of empire. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from An affair to remember. (2006, July 29). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from Constantinople Convention, (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/brianl/docs/1888constantinopleconventio on.pdf Construction of the Suez Canal, (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from Convention of Constantinople. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from First Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from

12 FIRST UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE (UNEF I) - Background (Full text). (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from Members, United Nation, Growth, History of Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from Official Documents System of the United Nations. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, fromhttp://daccess ddsny.un.org/doc/resolution/gen/nl5/600/04/pdf/nl pdf? peelement Suez Canal Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from Suez Canal Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from Suez Crisis - Foreign Relations of the United States, , Suez Crisis, July 26 December 31, 1956, Volume XVI - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from Suez Crisis. (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from war/suez-crisis 12

13 The Arab-Israeli War of Milestones - Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from /arab-israeli-war The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, Thompsell, A. (n.d.). Timeline: The Suez Crisis. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from United Nations Official Document. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from United Nations, main body, main organs, General Assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from 13