North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949

Home , Defense pact, Kuomintang, Member states of NATO, North Atlantic Treaty, Puppet state, Treaty of Brussels

Topic A: International Security Topic B: Organization Expansion and Administration

MUNUC 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

______

Letter from the Chair………………………………………………………….. 3

Letter from the Crisis Director………………………………………………...4

NATO in a Nutshell……………..……………………………………………... 5

Topic A: International Security……………………………………………… 6 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………….. 6 History of the Problem………………………………………………… 12 Possible Solutions………………………………………………………. 18 Bloc Positions…………………………………………………………… 24 Glossary…………………………………………………………………. 26

Topic B: Organization Expansion and Administration…………………. 27 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………….27 History of the Problem………………………………………………… 29 Possible Solutions………………………………………………………. 34

Bloc Positions…………………………………………………………… 36 Glossary…………………………………………………………………. 38

Bibliography……….…………………………………………………………. 39

2 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

______

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the NATO! My name is Ethan Della Rocca, and I will be taking on the role of committee chair. My co-executive, Nikolai, and I have been on three committees together, and I am thrilled to be working with him once again during my final MUNUC conference. I know that this coming weekend will be a memorable one for all of us, and I’m very excited to meet you all. Until then, let me tell you a little bit about myself.

I am a fourth year at the University of Chicago, majoring in both classical studies and philosophy. Hailing from Connecticut, I spend much of my time helping to run committees in UChicago’s high school MUN tournaments. This is my third time chairing a committee at MUNUC. Last year I was the chair for the Cabinet of Hoover 1929 committee.

As members of this committee, you will be charged with drafting the foundational documents of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization and ensuring the security of every member nation. In topic A we will debate the best ways we can provide collective security for all the nations of NATO. In topic B we will discuss the structure of NATO itself - how NATO will be run, the foundational beliefs of the organization, and whether NATO is open to future expansion. Each one of you has something to bring to the table. While I’m sure many of you have knowledge about this time period already, as you do more research into the history, keep in mind how you can influence our path forward. Each of you can make your mark on this committee in your own, sometimes unexpected, way. The road we take is truly up to your choosing. The better prepared you are, the better you’ll know what paths lie open to you. However, what matters above all else is that you have fun and enjoy this weekend! I sincerely hope that you all have a good experience this year and learn something new along the way. That is what matters most of all.

If you have any questions at all please don’t hesitate to contact me or my co-executive. We’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.

3 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32

Best,

Ethan Della Rocca Chair, The North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1949

LETTER FROM THE CRISIS DIRECTOR

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the NATO, or rather, what will hopefully become NATO. My name is Nikolai

Eklund and I am thrilled to spend my last MUNUC conference as your crisis director. As chair, I will

not just be a distant parliamentary overseer, but also an active participant in enforcing the true vision

of the club. NATO will be a unique committee that seeks to augment traditional GA mechanics with

treaty crafting and crisis elements. I have been on three committees with Ethan and there is nobody

else who I would want as my co-executive. On a more personal note, I am a fourth year pre-medical

student and either a Public Policy Studies and Russian and Eastern European Studies double major.

Born in the frozen wastes of Minnesota, I have gradually warmed to this other Midwestern climate. In

previous MUNUCs, I served on the Cabinet of Russia, the UNSC, and the Paris Peace Conference. I am

also a regular at the University of Chicago’s college school conference, ChoMUN. Outside of MUN and

academics, I am active in the Alpha Phi Omega service fraternity. Please feel free to contact me with

any questions or just because you can at [email protected].

Best regards,

Nikolai

4 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 NATO IN A NUTSHELL

______

In the universe of the committee, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) does not exist yet and it

will fall to delegates to actually create it, but it is important to understand roughly what the real-

world NATO looks like in practice. NATO was created with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on

the 4th of April, 1949. The treaty actually entered into force on August 24th, 1949. There were

originally twelve founders, though NATO expanded to a whopping twenty-nine members as of 2017.

The vast majority of nations are in Europe, save for the United States, Canada, and the now-dubious

Asian member of Turkey. The United States and Turkey currently make up the vast majority of NATO-

allied forces, though both increasingly corrupt countries have expressed doubts about their

membership in NATO.

NATO was founded with the purpose of protecting Western Europe with a mutual self-

defense clause from a Soviet attack, though this thankfully never came to pass. In response to NATO,

the Soviet Union assembled its satellite states into a largely similar coterie called the Warsaw Pact.

The only time that NATO’s famed Article Five was ever activated was in the aftermath of the horrific

terrorist attacks on September 11th. In addition to the famous Article Five, NATO also has a slightly

less intense Article Four that has been invoked several times about military consultation, not military

attack. Public opinion surveys raise significant doubts about whether or not NATO member states’

populations would actually be willing to provide military aid to a country other than their own.

5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 TOPIC A: INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

______

Statement of the Problem

The Purpose of NATO

The end of World War II has brought relative peace to Europe and the world. Yet that peace is at best a shaky truce that seems perpetually on the brink of collapse. Fundamentally, NATO is a security system meant not only to prevent the outbreak of conflict, but also to secure victory and a stable peace should conflict ever arise. While this is the core purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we must now decide how best to achieve these goals. There are a number of threats which the members of NATO now face, and any policy which we create must be fit to address any and all of these concerns. This is not to say that the purpose of NATO is to fix the problems that we face today. Rather, we must keep in mind what those dangers and make sure that we are prepared for whatever might happen. Therefore, the task that the member nations have before them is to define a system which best ensures the security of NATO’s member states no matter what the future holds.

The Best Defense is a Collective Defense

Collective defense is an integral part of the NATO alliance. As a group committed to defending each other, NATO bolsters the security of each of its member nations and dissuades would-be aggressors from launching any sort of an attack. What the member states of NATO must decide is the obligations that each nation has in regards to defending other member states. Some might argue for strong agreements that require military action on behalf of all member states should even one member be attacked. Others argue for less extreme measures, such as an agreement only to provide aid, be that military or otherwise. There are of course fears that requiring any retaliatory action is a surefire way to bring about another world war entirely.

6 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 The way in which the member nations choose to define their agreement of collective defense will have a broad impact on international issues. The member nations must think carefully about how they wish to position themselves in these larger problems.

East and West Berlin: A Tale of Two Cities

All of Berlin is inside of Soviet-controlled East Germany, yet the city of Berlin is itself currently split into East and West Berlin. West Berlin is controlled by the Americans, French, and British, while East

Berlin is controlled by the Soviet Union.1 Progress towards reunifying Berlin, if present at all, has been slow. The British, French, and American sectors have been joined together into one large

sector, forming West Berlin.2 However, the Soviet sector, East Berlin, remains separate from the rest of the city, and tensions between the Soviets and the Western Allies over the city have only grown. The ongoing blockade by the Soviets of West Berlin and subsequent effort to airlift in much needed

supplies has only added to these tensions.3

East and West Berlin seem primed to ignite another large scale conflict. Control over the city is important not only in the rebuilding of Germany and the denazification of Germany’s political

1“Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift. 2 GANZERT, FREDERIC W. “The ERP and Western Germany’s International Relations.” World Affairs 113, no. 2 (1950): 42– 45. 3 Berlin Airlift.

7 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 system, but symbolically as well. Berlin offers the Soviets a way of expanding their influence westward into Europe itself. Should they control all of Berlin, they would have control over all of Eastern Germany. This means that the Soviets are all the more likely to push for total control of the city of Berlin in order to cement their influence in the region.

So how does the Berlin situation affect the defensive policy that NATO allies must currently work to establish? West Berlin exists in an odd limbo. While it is itself not a properly independent state and sits under control of the French, British, and Americans, the territory does not truly belong to any of those three nations. At the same time, the territory does not formally belong to the newly created

nation of West Germany.4 The city exists as independent of both groups but remains occupied by the allied forces. Therefore, it is unclear what obligations NATO ought to have should conflict arise in West Berlin. Indeed, the question of obligation applies not only in the West Berlin case, but in the case of any future conflicts surrounding any other areas of similar legal status. Moreover, the form that aid by NATO would take is also in question, as West Berlin sits entirely inside of Soviet- controlled East Germany. The decision regarding West Berlin is important because it is both the likely starting point of the next global conflict and will set a precedent in any similar situation that may arise in the future.

A Growing Menace: The Soviet Threat

On March 5, 1946, Winston S. Churchill delivered the most important speech he would ever deliver as the Leader of the Opposition: “The Sinews of Peace.” This spiel gave rise to the infamous phrase,

“the iron curtain.”5 The iron curtain referred to the division of Europe between the Soviet bloc and the West, particularly how the U.S.S.R. banned its satellite states from open contact with their Western counterparts. In the years to come, Soviet historians would place this as the moment that the Cold War began.

During World War II, there was always an uneasy truce between the Soviets and the rest of the Allies, a truce that was only kept intact by the common enemy of the opposing Axis powers. However, once

4 “Berlin after 1945,” December 6, 2018. https://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/en/history/berlin-after-1945/. 5The International Churchill Society. “The Sinews of Peace ('Iron Curtain Speech’),” March 5, 1946. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/.

8 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 the war was over and the Axis powers were shattered, all pretenses were dropped by both sides. Some leaders, such as Churchill, were highly concerned by the more politico-ideological problems of totalitarianism, of Communist parties seizing authoritarian control, and of Soviet expansionism. Other leaders, like the American General George S. Patton, reviled the resurgent Soviet Union for a different set of reasons: thanks to the Russians’ practices of systematic crime, mass rape, corruption, treatment of prisoners, labor camps, and war crimes, these leaders saw the Russians as little better than the recently-defeated Nazis. Regardless of the details of their reasoning, politicians, officers, and even civilians began to see a confrontation with the U.S.S.R. as inevitable. Two of the largest military forces in history glared at one another across the ashes of Europe, so such fears of the Soviet threat were not unjustified.

However, as evidenced by the lack of outright hostilities for the last couple of years, both sides are unwilling to go to war again. President Truman reassigned Patton to a desk job after he heard the latter’s supposed warmongering, while Stalin withdrew Supreme Commander Georgi Zhukov from East Germany. Even as the Soviet leadership seeks to isolate its puppet states from the rest of the

9 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 world, it has maintained many of its usual diplomatic channels. Perhaps this should give hope that there is still room for future reconciliation with the Soviet menace.

This tentative peace gives rise to a problem that must be considered when drafting terms of self- defense. Too strong of an agreement might appear as a hostile action in the eyes of the Soviets. The consolidation of much of Western Europe’s military forces may leave the Soviets feeling vulnerable and isolated, thereby driving them to take further steps to increase their own military might. This would only lead to an escalation in tensions and the removal of any hope of reconciliation. At the same time, the growth in Soviet power seemingly requires some response by Western Europe. Inaction would leave the nations of Europe vulnerable to potential Soviet aggression. Ultimately, the creation of NATO is partially a response to the rise of the U.S.S.R. and any decision made will impact how the U.S.S.R. acts on the international stage, we must be careful in what message we want to send to the Soviets.

The United Nations: The Dream of Idealists

The last point to consider is the role that the United Nations plays in mediating international conflict. The United Nations itself is not a threat to international security, at least it doesn’t set out to be. As per the United Nations’ charter, the organization seeks to “maintain international peace and

security.”6 That said, we must consider the United Nations’ ability to actually achieve the goals that it sets out for itself. Peace is a lofty goal, but we live in a world of harsh realities. Most of the resolutions that the United Nations is able to put forth are non-binding in nature. Furthermore, just how “binding” the resolutions of the Security Council are remains to be seen. One might look towards the war between the Netherlands and Indonesia for an example of the lack of force these resolutions truly have. Indonesia had been a colony of the Netherlands, and the Dutch were

attempting to reestablish control over Indonesia after its declaration of independence in 1945.7 The war began when the Dutch felt that the new Indonesian Republic, to which the Dutch had recently

conceded control of parts of Indonesia, was not respecting Dutch property rights.8 While the UNSC

6 “Chapter I,” June 17, 2015. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html. 7 Encyclopedia Britannica. “Indonesia - The Ethical Policy.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/place/Indonesia. 8 “Dutch-Indonesian Wars | Encyclopedia.Com.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dutch-indonesian-wars.

10 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 has been instrumental in the creation of the Renville Agreement in January of 1948, which brought about a ceasefire between the two sides, that brokered peace was once again broken by the Dutch

later that same year.9 Moreover, earlier declarations by the UNSC, such as UNSC declaration 27,10 went unheeded. To date the conflict has yet to be fully resolved, though the UNSC has passed

another resolution regarding the issue,11 and the US threatened to cut funding from the Marshall

Plan to encourage a resolution.12 Yet still the conflict continues. Even if one takes this temporary ceasefire as an example of success for the UNSC, it still highlights another issue that must be considered: the effectiveness of the United Nations in preventing conflict as opposed to resolving conflict. If the UN is unable to stop conflict from occuring in the first place, then it would be a mistake to solely rely on them to ensure peace.

That said, whatever decision we make regarding policies of collective defense, those policies will still have to exist in relation to the role of the United Nations. An agreement that does not give room for action by the United Nations might be seen as undermining the peaceful mission of the UN. This could in turn embolden other nations to create their own systems and move outside of the UN framework when pursuing conflict resolution. A weak United Nations would certainly not be beneficial to NATO’s cause, so we must act carefully in calling for action outside of the UN framework. At the same time, a policy that is subservient to the UN’s wishes might not be effective or adaptive enough to prevent conflict or adequately defend the NATO member states from attack. NATO must decide how it wishes to position itself in relation to the UN and make sure to do so in a way that does not undermine both the role of the United Nations and the role of NATO itself.

9 Encyclopedia Britannica. “Renville Agreement | Netherlands-Indonesia [1948].” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Renville-Agreement. 10 “Resolution 27.” Accessed October 21, 2019. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/27. 11 “Resolution 67.” Accessed October 21, 2019. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/67. 12 Van Der Eng, Pierre. “Marshall Aid as a Catalyst in the Decolonization of Indonesia, 1947-49.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 19, no. 2 (1988): 335–52.

11 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 History of the Problem

World War I: The War To End All Wars

Once upon a time, there was a war was known as the War to End All Wars - how naive we once were. As history would show, the unmatched human instinct for violence would never be sated by even the cruelest of conflicts. A network of alliances, incompetent leaders, and massive arms buildups in Europpe created a deadly powder keg that was lit by the 1914 assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist. The various treaties inexorably sucked in the entire continent like a maelstrom.

After Ferdinand’s assassination, Czarist Russia backed up Serbia, while Germany supported Austro- Hungary. England and France piled in on Russia’s team as the Triple Entente, while Italy joined the opposing Triple Alliance. Italy quickly flip-flopped to the Triple Entente, a burgeoning coalition that became known as the Allies, while the Ottoman Empire and other misbegotten countries supporting Germany were called the Central Powers. A German invasion of France through Belgium had strong gains, but it ultimately ended in bloody stalemate, a foreshadowing of the grinding attritional warfare that would characterize the European theater of the war. Czarist Russia collapsed with the Russian Revolution, but this was not enough to save the Central Powers, especially when the United States shed its reluctance to get its hands dirty. On November 11, 1918, the big guns finally fell

silent.13

The First World War manifestly ended many years ago. However, its effects are still being felt to this day. For all intents and purposes, the legacies of the end of the conflict are more important than the conflict itself. Specifically, the highly punitive Treaty of Versailles that ended this war would simultaneously be vital to starting the next war. Economic crises and poisoned national pride eventually paved the way for a young German veteran named Adolf Hitler to rise to power.

12 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 The League of Nations

In the aftermath of the First World War, many world leaders gathered at the Paris Peace Conference in order to figure out how to prevent another world war. First and foremost among the world leaders were American President Woodrow Wilson, British Lord Robert Cecil, and South African statesman Jan Smuts. On June 28, 1919, 44 states ratified the final Covenant of the League of Nations. At the organization’s peak, it involved a total of 58 states. From the get-go, it was doomed to fail, as

Republicans in the United States’ Senate refused to ratify their own President’s plan.14

The League’s problems rapidly multiplied, as it utterly failed to stop conflicts such as the Manchurian Incident, the Chaco War, the Italo-Abyssinian War, Spanish Civil War, and the Second Sino-Japanese War. The League failed in many ways: it did not follow through with disarmament, it had poor global representation, and it had a fundamental contradiction in its goals of collective security and maintaining international relations between states. Most importantly, after World War I, nobody really wanted to fight any more, even if it was for a good cause.

The Second World War broke out anyways and resulted in the organization taking a several year hiatus until it was eventually liquidated on April 19th, 1946. While the League of Nations was a noble cause, it was toothless and ultimately failed at its one job: preventing a second world war. Another round of world leaders hoped to succeed where the League had failed in a new international organization called the United Nations.

World War II: Round 2: Fight!

The year is now 1949, so one would hope that everyone present is intimately familiar with the devastating conflict that a lengthy explanation is unnecessary. That said, in the interests of thoroughness, the following section shall be a brief summary of the next world war to blight the globe.

14 Time. “5 Things to Know About the League of Nations.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://time.com/5507628/league- of-nations-history-legacy/.

13 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Adolf Hitler rose to power on the Nazi platform of militarization, expansionism, nationalism, and systemic racism. Benito Mussolini’s fascist Italy acted as his sidekick. On the other side of the world, the Imperial Japanese espoused a broadly similar set of ideals. The logical result was militaristic expansion by these Axis powers into neighboring territories, such as the Sudetenland in Europe and China in Asia. The war did not officially start for historical purposes until German tanks rumbled into western Poland on September 1, 1939 and the Soviets invaded from the east. Much like in the First World War, Germany invaded France through Belgium and triggered an international response from the Allies. History repeated itself again as the isolationist United States were eventually dragged into

the war a couple years later.15

Advances in technology, strategy, and genocide created a total war in which the death toll rapidly outstripped that of the Great War, which then had to be renamed to the First World War. The Allies eventually pushed the Axis powers back. Decisive victories by the Soviet Union and other Allied powers strangled Germany by May 8th, 1945. Imperial Japan required further convincing to surrender on August 15th by the world’s first and thankfully last wartime atomic bombings.

15 HISTORY. “World War II.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii.

14 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Rebuilding Europe

By 1945, World War II had come to a close. Although the war was over, the destruction that it brought across Europe still lay unrepaired, like a wound over the continent. The great nations of Europe were weakened by the war, and the power they wielded on the world stage had weakened as well. Yet two powers rose to take their place on the world stage: the United States and the Soviet Union. Although allies during the war, the relationship between these two superpowers quickly broke down towards the end of the war, with tensions arising well before World War II was ever really over. Guided by opposed ideologies, each sought to increase their influence as the two rising superpowers. As the divide between East and West grew larger, so too did each nation’s attempts to shore up their own power and influence.

Key in the United States’ endeavor to unite the West against the Soviet East was the Marshall Plan. Through American funding, the Marshall Plan was the brainchild of George C. Marshall, who

commissioned $12 billion to be put together for the rebuilding of Western Europe.16 This was done not only to help rebuild the struggling economies of the Western European nations but also to stave

off the threat of communist expansion into the West.17 So far the Marshall Plan has been a

resounding success, and has successfully helped to revitalize European industry.18

The Eastern states have not seen any of the aid provided by the Marshall Plan, as they sit under the influence of the Soviet Union. As a result, while Western Europe and the United States grew closer, the distance between the East and the West only grew larger. The welfare of those nations under the influence of the two superpowers is an important sticking point. How well the two nations can protect and support their allies is indicative of their own power. Moreover, the relative success of their allies reflects the strength of their own government and economic systems. This rivalry that was quickly growing is not limited however to the success of allied countries. The management of

16 “Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/marshall-plan. 17 Ibid 18 Ibid

15 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Germany and specifically Berlin has also played a key role in chilling the relationship between the Soviets and Western Europe.

A City Divided

After the conclusion of World War II, control over Germany was split between the allied forces during the Potsdam Conference. The French, English, Americans, and Soviets all left the conference

controlling different sections of Germany.19 Over the next three years, the British, French, and Americans merged together their three zones of control. Notably, they also chose to include this

jointly controlled area in the Marshall plan.20 Yet there was another issue regarding the governance of Germany. No country wanted to cede control of Germany’s capital, Berlin. Although the capital was completely within the Soviets’ zone of control, the city itself was, like the rest of the country, divided into four parts, each of which was ruled by a different Allied force. This arrangement result in increased tensions between the Soviet Union and the rest of the Allies.

Since Berlin was located in the Soviet area of control, the Soviets wanted to obtain governance over

the entirety of the city.21 As the Americans, British, and French began to make strides towards unifying their respective regions of control, they also undertook different ways of preventing the Soviets from taking control of West Berlin. One of these ways was the introduction of a new currency

in the non-Soviet zones and in West Berlin in 1948.22 In response, the Soviets issued their own new currency in East Berlin, and also blocked off all major means of access into West Berlin, such as

roads, railways, and canals.23 This set off an international crisis and much needed supplies were unable to get into the city. The Soviets offered to lift the blockade if the new currency was

removed.24 The Western Allies rejected this offer. They began to airlift in supplies to West Berlin, as

they still had access to West Berlin by air according to their 1945 treaty with the Soviets.25 The airlift

19 “Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/potsdam-conf. 20 Ganzert, 45. 21 Berlin Airlift. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

16 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 is still ongoing, however the Soviets seem to be reconsidering their position regarding the blockade,

especially after around 300,000 West Berliners protested in favor of the airlift.26

Treaty Times

In the years following the Second World War, there have already been a couple of major treaties signed by Western powers towards vaguely similar goals towards the proposed North Atlantic Treaty. They are manifestly not identical, but provide some inklings of the ideas that would become commonplace during the discussions for improved and better crafted treaties of the future. The most germane examples are the Treaty of Dunkirk and the Treaty of Brussels.

The Treaty of Dunkirk was signed between Britain and France on March 4, 1947, with the aim of defending against military aggression from Germany after World War II. However, some argue that the supposed German threat was just a pretext to the real threat of the Soviet Union. The Treaty of

Dunkirk was rapidly superseded27 by the Treaty of Brussels, also known as the Brussels Pact. Signed on March 17, 1948, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands joined Britain and France to provide military, economic, and other cooperation, as well as a mutual defense clause for all members. It created the organization known as the Western Union and was ratified the same year by all signatory nations.

26 Ibid. 27 “Western European Union - Union de l’Europe Occidentale.” Accessed October 21, 2019. http://www.weu.int/.

17 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Possible Solutions

As with any complex diplomatic issue, the creation of NATO will be a multifaceted process influenced by many elements. All parties share more or less the same final goal of some sort of intergovernmental military alliance for the purpose of maintaining national and international security. However, the paths to reaching that goal, or what that goal should look like, are much less concrete. As such, here are a handful of thoughts to help guide the way. The text below should by no means be treated as comprehensive in any fashion, let alone a template for actual discussion and debate. It is merely a jumping-off point. Another disclaimer: any discussion of solutions will pragmatically need to first consider a number of vital definitions.

Any proposed solution will need to address three key points: the definition of an attack, the requirements of a response, and the role of the United Nations. The following sections will briefly explain why each of these points must be considered and give a few potential solutions the body might choose to adopt.

What Constitutes an Attack?

At the core of this question lies the fundamental question of all collective defense treaties: when is it justified for a member country to invoke the treaty and call upon fellow members for aid? Too strict of a definition will mean that the countries may not be able to get the help that they need should conflict arise. Stringent requirements will inhibit NATO’s ability to act quickly in response to threats as the body will be required to wait until certain parameters are met. Moreover, sometimes a situation might necessitate early action in order to prevent the escalation of the conflict. NATO might not be able to carry out such initiatives if the definition of an attack is too strict. At the same time, a definition that is too loose may only make a manageable situation unmanageable. If collective defense in invoked at every opportunity, NATO might also make the situation worse. A local conflict might quickly become a global crisis. Moreover, a loose definition might cause member states to enter into a war without a sufficient casus belli - reason for war. This might in turn draw criticism from the international community. The problems with a loose definition do not end here however. If collective defense is too easily invoked, potential member nations might be reluctant to join, fearing that they could be unnecessarily drawn into conflicts that they have no interest in.

18 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 NATO is supposed to keep its member nations safe, not drag them into conflict after conflict. Keeping this tension between strict and loose definitions of an attack in mind, we can now explore three potential ways of addressing these concerns.

Attacks as actions against a member state’s territory

The first definition to consider is perhaps the strictest definition. NATO members might decide to define only an attack against a nation’s forces that is within the nation’s territory as one that qualifies as a reason to invoke collective defense. This means that an attack against a country’s forces would not be enough to justify action. The attack must occur within the nation’s boundaries. Thus many naval and aerial conflicts would not be enough to trigger action by NATO. This would effectively limit defensive action to only direct attacks against a member state. Such a definition would still allow NATO to be a useful organization, but it would severely impact its ability to defend member states. That said, the more limited scope would perhaps make NATO to seem less antagonistic to non-member nations. Even some member states might approve of this approach, states that might be otherwise reluctant about joining NATO.

Attacks as actions against a member state’s military forces

19 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 This is perhaps the middle of the road approach to solving this issue. The definition would no longer be limited to just those attacks occurring on member nation soil, but also include attacks outside of those boundaries. With this definition, naval and aerial battles that occur outside of a country’s borders would be enough to invoke action by NATO. This definition however might turn off some NATO potential members and weaken their interest in joining the organization. With this definition, it would be much easier for NATO member nations to find themselves participating in conflicts they might feel they have no stake in. Moreover, states outside of NATO could see such a policy as a more overt threat to their own security. A more aggressive stance of the use of military force might mean a greater likelihood for large-scale war to break out. Member nations will need to decide if these downsides are worth the extra security that this approach might bring.

Attacks as actions begun by member states

This is by far the most aggressive of the three avenues discussed in this section. Adopting this definition, namely that any military action, even those begun by a member state, is enough to justify action on the part of NATO, would fundamentally change the very purpose of NATO. The organization would cease to be a purely defensive alliance. While this might mean member nations would be much more likely to see success in any conflict they begin, there are a number of downsides that this approach would bring. First, many states will simply not want to join NATO, as they do not want to be bound to fight in wars they have no stake in, especially if these conflicts do not arise out of a need for self-defense. Second, the enemies of the West would certainly receive such an alliance as a hostile action. An organization like NATO, operating under these definitions, would pose a serious threat. Third, member states being bound to fight in any engagement begun by any one member state could easily cause another global conflict, one perhaps on the scale of World War I or World War II. A war with a NATO state would be war with multiple continents, and NATO would have the capability to initiate such a war. Member nations will need to think carefully as to whether or not they want NATO to have this capability.

Requirements of a Response

While it is important to decide what is enough to warrant action by NATO, it is also necessary to consider what sort of response member states should be required to give. The aid that NATO states

20 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 might give to fellow members can be broken down into two broad categories: military and non- military action. Military action would entail the actual deployment of troops or the sending of munitions and other military supplies. Non-military action might mean the loaning of money, the cutting off of economic ties to enemy nations, the housing of refugees fleeing the conflict, the creation of public declamations or denouncements, or any number of other actions.

In dealing with this question there are two basic approaches to consider: always requiring military action or only requiring non-military action. In the first case, whenever a conflict occurs that triggers NATO intervention (as already mentioned this too must be decided by this body), member states will be required to send troops or military supplies to defend the attacked member state. In the second case, only non-military aid would be required, though it is generally assumed that the option of sending military aid would be available to the member states. Strictly requiring military action might cause NATO to overreact to a situation, or cause member states to become overly-involved in a conflict that they want no part of. Leaving it up to member states to decide what to do when called upon may only end up leaving NATO states improperly defended during their time of need. In general, the second option is the more agreeable one for states looking to join NATO. Each conflict will be different, and member nations must be sure to allow for some level of flexibility in whatever they require. Moreover, this would better allow for member states to alter their aid as the situation progresses and more long-term help becomes required.

Nevertheless, it is important to set guidelines and expectations as to what sort of aid should be given during a specific conflict, lest NATO’s response to a situation proves to be not enough. To that end a third solution might also prove appealing to the members of NATO. The organization could tie the required level of aid to the type of conflict that is occurring. The definitions of these different types of conflict could be based on the types discussed in the previous section, or be based on another metric entirely. It is up to the body to decide what specifics they would like to see. This approach might still provide some flexibility while still ensuring that nations receive the help they need. However, it is still the case that this might prove too strict for some NATO members.

Deference to the United Nations

21 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 This is the last issue about which potential solutions will be discussed. In short, the United Nations is itself a global organization dedicated to global peace. The United Nations Security Council passes directives aimed at preventing or stopping conflicts as they occur. In general, nations engaged in disputes that might lead to a hostilities are expected to bring the situation before the UNSC as a complaint. One would expect that the UNSC would prefer for NATO to withhold action until after the UNSC is itself able to act. The body must decide it they wish to include the UN in the decisions that it makes regarding collective defense. There are three potential ways to go about addressing this question: include the UN on initial and all subsequent actions made by NATO, include the UN on actions taken after NATO’s initial response, forgo including the UN entirely.

Each of these three options has benefits and drawbacks. The first, including the UNSC on all actions, would help to ensure that whatever NATO chooses to do is in line with what the UN desires. This might help member nations to avoid sanctions or other punishments the UNSC might choose to enforce should NATO choose to take actions unapproved of by the UNSC. Furthermore, this would help establish NATO as a purely defensive organization, and not some warmongering alliance. However, waiting for UNSC decisions would greatly inhibit NATO’s ability to respond quickly to a situation. Time is of the essence in military conflicts, so any delay could prove devastating. Moreover, UNSC is itself made up of member nations, not all of which might have the best interests of NATO members in mind. Some of these states might even have veto power in the UNSC. Delaying action until after UNSC decisions might simply result in NATO deferring to its enemies. In order to resolve the first of these problems the body might choose to involve the UNSC only on secondary decisions that it makes, leaving its initial response entirely up to itself. This would allow for NATO to act quickly and without delay, but risk acting counter to the UNSC’s wishes. The issue of ultimately being under the influence of potentially hostile nations would still remain however, as secondary action undertaken by NATO would still be brought before the UNSC. For this reason, some might think it best for NATO to act completely independently from the United Nations. However, such a decision would certainly draw sharp criticism from the UN itself and perhaps increase tensions between NATO and non-NATO states. Once again it will be this body’s task to determine what approach is best.

22 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 The above ruminations will hopefully prove helpful in forging responses to Topic A. This problem has many elements and so too shall any solutions to dealing with international security for the foreseeable future. It cannot be stressed enough that the solutions discussed in this section are not complete answers but rather the starting point of a larger debate that must be had.

23 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Bloc Positions

The nations participating in the NATO negotiations can be largely split into two blocs - a pro national sovereignty bloc and a pro collective defense bloc. However, these blocs are not monoliths. The reasons for each nation falling into one of these two categories are not necessarily the same as any other nation. Thus these blocs should not be seen as strict allegiances but more groups of somewhat like minded states. We expect that states may change their opinions over the course of discussion. After all, that is the point of negotiations. Concessions made to one nation will likely not be enough to win over the support of all nations in a bloc. Moreover, one should not be surprised if splits emerge within these two blocs as the ties grouping these nations together are not particularly strong. The nations here wish to see the successful formation of NATO. The question is simply how that can best be achieved.

A further note regarding Spain, Greece, and Turkey. None of these countries were part of the initial NATO negotiations. However, while recognizing this, we have decided to include these countries in the negotiation proceedings as if they were founding members. Thus the blocs they are considered a member of are based on what the nations would have most likely argued for if they were participants in the initial negotiations.

Pro National Sovereignty Bloc

United States, Canada, Norway, France, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, Greece, Spain

While these nations can be grouped together as part of one pro national sovereignty bloc, there are two distinct smaller groups within this bloc, each with their own reasons for why they might fit into this larger category.

Any sort of intergovernmental pact that necessitates military action in response to a threat to a member state has the danger of undermining a country’s own national sovereignty. While all of these nations wish to create a self-defense pact, many of these countries have outlying concerns about such an agreement. National Sovereignty can come under threat through such an agreement in two ways. Required military action may force a country into a conflict it does not wish to be in

24 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 without the country having any say in the matter. This is the primary concern of Canada and the United States - countries that have historically been more isolationist in their foreign policy.

Additionally, the practical implications of a self-defense treaty might necessitate the stationing of international troops or weapons (even nuclear weapons) within the borders of member nations - even during peacetime. The other nations in this bloc might all have problems with this practice. Intra-NATO conflicts, fears of antagonizing the U.S.S.R., and concerns about the dominance of the United States are all reasons for such skepticism.

Pro Collective Defense

United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Turkey

Of these nations, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium were all members of the earlier Brussels Pact. As a result, they are some of the greatest supporters of strong NATO with more stringent requirements on military action. The United Kingdom is an especially strong supporter of this position. France, while a member of the Brussels Pact does not have the same attitude towards NATO as these other nations, in large part due to the inclusion of the United States in NATO negotiations. It should be noted that Italy and Turkey, while not part of the Brussels Pact, also tend towards a pro collective defense position. These nations tend to be more supportive of or at least more willing to support stronger positions of collective defense which might entail requiring military action or stationing troops in NATO nations during peacetime.

25 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Glossary

Berlin (East and West): capital of Germany, now divided between the U.S.S.R and other powers, just like Germany as a whole

Berlin Airlift: process of airlifting supplies into the besieged West Berlin

Casus Belli: “cause for war,” Latin

Collective defense: an attack against one ally is treated as an attack against all

League of Nations: an early international organization for world peace and security

Marshall Plan: a multibillion-dollar American initiative to rebuild Western Europe

Member state: any signatory of the final treaty

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization

United Nations: the current international organization for world peace and security

U.S.S.R.: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Soviet Union

26 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 TOPIC B: ORGANIZATION EXPANSION AND ADMINISTRATION

______

Statement of the Problem

NATO’s Composition and Structure

Although many often imagine NATO as primarily focused on dealing with external security threats, NATO must also deal with political threats and questions that will inevitably arise from within. This internal discord may manifest in a variety of different ways. NATO then must be preemptively structured to be able to deal with such problems. It is the task of this body to consider what this sort of structure might look like and to decide how best to implement their vision. Although the following issues may appear simple, they will likely require far more deliberation than their simplicity suggests.

Internal Balance of Power

The committee must determine whether there are leaders in some form in NATO, or not. As a corollary, if there are leaders, their responsibilities, privileges, and process of elevation to the leadership position(s) must be listed out in great detail.

27 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 On a similar note, even if there are leaders, the actual administrative functioning of the organization will be another topic of discussion. How much say does each member state get? The division of power across member states, regions, and other international organizations will greatly affect the day to day operations of NATO. Perhaps more fundamentally, the same questions of procedure that faced the founding of the United Nations will be posed and addressed. NATO might have subdivisions, or democratic decision-making, or rotating positions, or require consensus, or any number of intricacies essential to the function of a vital international body. All of these details will be quintessential to maintaining a stable balance of power inside of the organization.

Global Balance of Power

Just as NATO must carefully focus on maintaining a balance of power inside the organization, so too must it observe and maintain a balance of power outside the organization. Every nation may have a different definition of what the balance of power currently is or what it should be, but every nation must be sure to keep the global political landscape in mind during the conference.

NATO - the Anti-Communist?

The above information may seem merely like a history lesson, but the greater point is that Soviet influence has expanded in Eastern Europe and in East Asia and shows no signs of stopping given recent trends. This raises the question - should NATO operate as an anti-communist entity? NATO manifestly has the purpose of countering aggression and dealing with national security issues, so Soviet (or any) military expansion would be considered a matter of great import. However, the waters are muddied when it comes to more insidious, non-violent forms of influence; what if a Soviet puppet state or any sort of communist-associated regime attempted to gain access to NATO as a full member? Certain member states would undoubtedly be vehemently opposed, but given the steady of expansion of communist ideology, it is only a matter of time before the topic will be addressed. Better to pre-empt the inevitable than be caught off-guard at an untimely moment. Therefore it should be decided from the outset whether NATO is a definitionally anti-communist organization, or if it might one day be open to the admittance of a communist member state.

28 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 History of the Problem

The great communist power that is the U.S.S.R was not always an amalgam of socialist states. The story of how the U.S.S.R. came into being and the rise of other communist states can act as a warning about the potential spread of communism as an ideology. While the committee will need to decide what measures - if any at all - they wish to take to keep NATO out communist control, understanding the history of communism’s growth will help to put this great threat in context and help the committee to identify those nations which might be at risk of falling to communist forces.

The Russian Revolution

The Russian Revolution of 1917 saw the overthrow of Russia’s czars and the establishment of Bolshevik rule over Russia. The Bolsheviks, a socialist organization founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, led an armed rebellion in what was called the October Revolution. This conflict erupted after months of escalating tensions between the provisional government ruling Russia at the time and a number of socialist groups. The violence resulted in the overthrow of the provisional government and the establishment of a new Socialist government that was primarily controlled by the Bolsheviks. The new government promptly pulled itself out of World War I, just as the Bolsheviks had promised to do. However, by 1918 a new internal conflict arose, between the Bolsheviks (the Reds) and other socialist or independence movements (the Whites). The Russian Civil War continued into the early 1920’s as Bolshevik control was firmly established in not just Russia, but also in outlying regions. The civil war and ensuing famine killed more Russians than the Germans did. In 1922, as the Russian army gained power over these territories, the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the U.S.S.R) was created. This new union was composed of Russia, Belarus, and the

Transcaucasian Federation (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia).28 Russia, however, was the clear

dominant force in this new arrangement.29

28 Encyclopedia Britannica. “Soviet Union - Brest-Litovsk.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union. 29 Ibid.

29 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 The Expansion of the U.S.S.R.

The next two decades saw the U.S.S.R. expand its credibility and influence with nations across the

world. Numerous countries, including the U.S. in 1933,30 came to recognize the U.S.S.R.’s legitimacy. However, during this time, the Soviet Union saw little territorial expansion. This changed when the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany in 1939. The treaty was a nonaggression pact between the two nations and was signed slightly a week before Hitler’s invasion of

Poland and the beginning of World War II.31 The two nations secretly split all of Eastern Europe into spheres of influence between the Nazis and Soviets. Poland was planned to be split between the two

countries. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland were also all promised to the Soviets.32 In 1941, the two nations went to war when Nazi Germany violated the terms of the pact and attacked the Soviets

in what was known as Operation Barbarossa.33 Still, the Soviets were able to maintain control over Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, parts of Finland, and parts of Poland. These nations were incorporated

into the U.S.S.R.34

30 “Milestones: 1921–1936 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ussr. 31 Encyclopedia Britannica. “German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact | History, Facts, & Significance.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/German-Soviet-Nonaggression-Pact. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.

30 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 However, Soviet expansion did not stop with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Stalin made good on his promise to gobble up his neighbors either by clandestinely supporting local communist leaders to maintain the illusion of democratic transformation, or, as was later more common, by simply using military force. In addition to East Germany, the nations of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania all fall beneath the shadow of the Soviet Union. It should be noted that while these satellite states are effectively under Soviet control, they are still nominally independent.

Communist Europe and an Expanding Soviet Influence

Over the past decade, the Soviet Union has consolidated its control over a number of states. This group of nations which the Soviets now control is known today as the Eastern Bloc. If more nations became Soviet satellite states, they too would join the Eastern Bloc. This new political entity is a formidable force that poses a serious threat to all who might oppose it. Even still, the U.S.S.R. is not invincible - dictator Josip Tito infamously split Yugoslavia away from Stalin’s influence in 1948 in what would come to be called the Tito-Stalin Split. Nonetheless, Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” fell inexorably and forever shifted the political landscape of the European continent.

Although an increasingly communist Europe is certainly an example of expanding Soviet influence, it is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. While the world’s eyes are firmly set on Eastern Europe, the Soviets have made great advances elsewhere, particularly in Asia. In China, Korea, and even in Vietnam in French Indochina, Soviet-backed forces are fighting and winning in the name of communism.

Communist China is by far the greatest protégé of the Soviets. After a period of internal power struggles at the beginning of the twentieth century, the People’s Republic of China was reunified by General Chiang Kai Shek with the help of Soviet aid started under his predecessor, Sun Yat-sen of the Kuomintang party (KMT). The Soviets also supported the Communist Party of China at the same time. After a few years of coexistence, the two opposing parties inevitably fell prey to their baser

31 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 instincts and turned to blows.35 Even World War II and the ensuing massive Japanese invasion were unable to dissuade countryman from murdering countryman. While the rest of the world seeks to lick its post-war wounds, the Chinese took the cessation in global hostilities as an opportunity to escalate the slaughter. The conflict has yet to formally cease, though it is inevitably burning itself out by virtue of millions of casualties leaving precious few soldiers left to fight. Despite having better training and better weaponry, the KMT have been hard-pressed by the PLA’s ability to endlessly recruit millions of peasants to replace mounting battlefield losses. The current leader of the communists, Mao Zedong, claims that victory is near for the PLA, and he looks to be correct in his prediction. Kuomintang officials and troops appear to be preparing to evacuate to islands just off the coast of the Chinese mainland in the wake of decisive losses. It should be noted that Stalin and Mao recently caused a minor Sino-Soviet split to the point that Soviet-backed Mongol rebels and even Red Army border outposts have clashed with the PLA. While one might argue that this does not constitute Soviet influence, one cannot discount the immense aid provided by the U.S.S.R. and the many politico-cultural similarities of the two nations. For all intents and purposes, the Communist Chinese of the present day are a direct offshoot of Soviet influence.

The U.S.S.R. also expanded its reach in Korea with much less acrimony than in China. At the end of World War II, much like Germany, the United States occupied one mangled half of Korea and the Soviet Union occupied the other half. After gaining much support with local nationalists and Soviet sympathizers, Red Army troops left the northern half of the nation under command of Kim Il-sung in

35 “Chinese Civil War, 1945-1949 - Military History - Oxford Bibliographies - Obo.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791279/obo-9780199791279-0031.xml.

32 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 the form of the People’s Republic of Korea. The U.S. leaders refused to meet with the Chinese or People’s Republic and in fact outlawed both of them. Much like in China, the non-communists and communists soon reviled one another, but war did not break out. They ran separate elections, where Kim Il-sung unsurprisingly won in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the virulently anti-

communist Syngman Rhee won in the Republic of Korea.36 Just like that, another Soviet-supported state was born.

Yet another area of Soviet meddling is the region of Vietnam, currently nominally under French administration in French Indochina. Even as the fighting in China winds down, the fighting has just begun heating up in Vietnam. A wide range of forces made their way into the fighting in French Indochina, but they can broadly be categorized as French forces and communist guerrillas. The main actors are French Far East Expeditionary Corps and Bao Dai’s Vietnamese National Army against Ho

Chi Minh’s Viet Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap’s People’s Army of Vietnam.37 A few years of low-level insurgency have blossomed into open war this year thanks to weapons and supplies flowing from the Soviets and the communist Chinese. It is unclear how the conflict will end as both sides pour more and more assets into the fire, but many look to the Chinese Civil War as setting a dangerously similar precedent for their Southern neighbors.

36 “East Asia/Southeast Asia :: Korea, North — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html. 37 Editors, History com. “Vietnam War Timeline.” HISTORY. Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-timeline.

33 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Possible Solutions

Organization, expansion and administration constitute the remaining primary topics for committee members to ponder. Discussion here may be more or less narrow, but this section concerns the actual day-to-day functioning of the proposed organization and, as a key corollary, how the organization would be expanded with new members.

Composition and Structure

There are limitless diverse ways to structure an intergovernmental alliance, therefore it would be pointless to list them out in this document. NATO will not run through magic - delegates should determine how NATO runs on a day-to-day basis from the macro to the micro level. The committee will probably consider the chain of command, the span of control in who manages what, specialization, departmentalization, and the centralization of decision-making or lack there-of, to name just a few elements of organization. The construction of NATO must be done in a fashion that balances flexibility, efficiency, fairness, security, and whatever other values members may deem important. Trade-offs will be made between these values, as even between two of the most basic types of organizational models, hierarchical-bureaucratic and flat structures, massive sacrifices are made to improve one element at the expense of another. That does not mean one model is worse than another; they merely emphasize different aspects of form.

Expansion

The world shifts and changes over time; NATO should be no exception to this dynamism. However, in addition to making a structurally flexible NATO, the committee must specifically consider how exactly to add new members to NATO. First, would NATO even permit the addition of new members, or would they be permanently unchanging like the P-5 of the United Nations Security Council? Second, assuming adding members was permissible, how would the admissions process go? Perhaps NATO would be invitation-only, or perhaps not. Maybe NATO-hopeful states would have to gain the patronage of an existing member and be brought on as a temporary member before gaining full membership. However, setting up such a tiered system would require clarifying the privileges and responsibilities of different types of members. The admissions timeline would also

34 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 need to be spelled out. Some members might request that certain nations or entities be explicitly forbidden from joining NATO.

The previous text about the history of communism should make much more sense now - at some point, it is almost inevitable that some overtly communist or at least notable communist sympathies will attempt to make overtures to NATO. They may do this with good will or ill will. The committee must determine what to do in the face of a potential member that has clashing ideologies. This statement remains most relevant towards communist and socialist states, yet may be germane towards any sort of ideologically divergent government that exposes itself to NATO.

Of course, given that the majority of nations on the globe are currently not communist or lead by idiosyncratic ideologues, it is very possible that such an incident may never occur. However, it is better to be safe than sorry and to prepare for every eventuality.

35 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Bloc Positions

The nations participating in the NATO negotiations can be largely split into three blocs. Like with Topic A, these blocs are not monoliths. The reasons for each nation falling into one of these two categories are not necessarily the same as any other nation. Thus these blocs should not be seen as strict allegiances but more groups of somewhat like minded states, and it is quite probable that these blocs will see fracturing at some point during negotiations. We expect that states may change their opinions over the course of discussion. As always, the nations here wish to see the successful formation of NATO. The question is simply how that can best be achieved.

As mentioned with Topic A, Spain, Greece, and Turkey were not part of the initial NATO negotiations. However, while recognizing this, we have decided to include these countries in the negotiation proceedings as if they were founding members. Thus the blocs they are considered a member of are based on what the nations would have most likely argued for if they were participants in the initial negotiations.

The Western Union Bloc

France, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium

The nations within this group have strong anti-communist and pro-democracy leanings. They see NATO as not just a way to ensure security within Europe and North America but also as a way to check the expanding power of the U.S.S.R.. The members of this bloc are members of the Brussels Treaty and thus a part of the Western Union. The Western Union (made up of the United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium) is committed not only to the defense of its member nations but also to cooperation in the spaces of politics, economics, and culture.

36 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Pro-Democracy Anti-Communist Bloc

Canada, United States, Turkey, Greece

This group of states, while strongly anti-communist in their politics, is not bound together by treaty like the Western Union is. Culturally these nations are still strongly anti-communist and would seek to make NATO an anti-communist group. While there may be disagreement in how explicit that stance should be - after all a too openly anti-communist organization may prove to only antagonize the Soviets - there is a general consensus among these states that NATO should be an anti- communist organization.

Pro-Neutrality Bloc

Denmark, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Italy

This final bloc of nations is not as committed to NATO being an explicitly anti-communist organization. This is not to say that these states are not against communism, however they may have their own reservations on the issue. This may be due to internal politics of the country - not all countries have completely removed communism and socialism from their political dialogue - or due to concerns of international discord as the result of any anti-communist declarations. One thing of note is Spain’s inclusion in this bloc. While Spain is fiercely anti-communist, it does not agree politically with many of the other potential member nations of NATO. This may put it in the position of desiring NATO to be, at least nominally, a neutral organization.

37 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Glossary

Chain of command: how tasks are assigned and who is in charge of assigning them

Eastern Bloc: communist nations allied with or under control of the Soviet Union, including East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

KMT: Kuomintang Party, Chiang Kai-Shek’s former dominant communist party in China that was forced to Taiwan by Mao Zedong’s Communist Party of China

Sino-Soviet split: diplomatic split between the U.S.S.R. and Communist China

Span of control: who manages what, or what falls under certain jurisdiction

Tito-Stalin split: diplomatic split between Yugoslav dictator Josip Tito and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin

38 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Bibliography

Time. “5 Things to Know About the League of Nations.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://time.com/5507628/league-of-nations-history-legacy/.

“Berlin after 1945,” December 6, 2018. https://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/en/history/berlin- after-1945/.

“Chapter I,” June 17, 2015. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html.

“Chinese Civil War, 1945-1949 - Military History - Oxford Bibliographies - Obo.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791279/obo- 9780199791279-0031.xml.

“Dutch-Indonesian Wars | Encyclopedia.Com.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and- maps/dutch-indonesian-wars.

“East Asia/Southeast Asia :: Korea, North — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/kn.html.

Editors, History com. “Vietnam War Timeline.” HISTORY. Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-timeline.

GANZERT, FREDERIC W. “The ERP and Western Germany’s International Relations.” World Affairs 113, no. 2 (1950): 42–45.

———. “The ERP and Western Germany’s International Relations.” World Affairs 113, no. 2 (1950): 42–45.

Encyclopedia Britannica. “German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact | History, Facts, & Significance.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/German-Soviet- Nonaggression-Pact.

39 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32 Encyclopedia Britannica. “Indonesia - The Ethical Policy.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/place/Indonesia.

“Milestones: 1921–1936 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ussr.

“Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/potsdam-conf.

“Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift.

“Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/marshall-plan.

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Renville Agreement | Netherlands-Indonesia [1948].” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Renville-Agreement.

“Resolution 27.” Accessed October 21, 2019. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/27.

“Resolution 67.” Accessed October 21, 2019. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/67.

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Soviet Union - Brest-Litovsk.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union.

The International Churchill Society. “The Sinews of Peace ('Iron Curtain Speech’),” March 5, 1946. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of- peace/.

Van Der Eng, Pierre. “Marshall Aid as a Catalyst in the Decolonization of Indonesia, 1947-49.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 19, no. 2 (1988): 335–52.

“Western European Union - Union de l’Europe Occidentale.” Accessed October 21, 2019. http://www.weu.int/.

HISTORY. “World War II.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii.

40 North Atlantic Treaty Organization - 1949 | MUNUC 32