ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

League of Nations London International Model United Nations 18th Session | 2017

T’sTable of Content

1

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Table of Contents

Letter from the Directors 3 Introduction to the 4 Topic A: The Question of the War in Spain 5 1. Introduction 5 2. Background to the conflict 6 2.1. Long-term instability (~1820-1923) 6 2.2. Short-term polarization (1923-1936) 7 2.3. Immediate triggers (1936) 9 3. Current situation 10 4. Timeline 10 5. Questions a resolution should address 11 6. Further reading 11 Topic B: Resolution of the Colombo-Peruvian Dispute 12 1. Introduction 12 2. Background to the conflict 13 2.1. Origins of the dispute 13 2.2. Mediation efforts, international involvement and war 15 2.3. Role of the League of Nations 17 3. Current situation 18 4. Timeline 18 5. Further Reading 19 Conference Information 20

2

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Letter from the Directors

Dear delegates,

It’s our great pleasure to welcome you to LIMUN 2017 in the top-notch, first- rate committee that is the historical League of Nations. We, Dalí ten Hove and Paul Nöllke, are incredibly excited to see you all at this premier Model UN conference and explore with you the issues that captivated our ancestors! Let’s all for a moment escape reality and the things that keep us on our toes, especially the impending disasters of the Trump presidency, and delve back in time to the UN’s forerunner. It’ll be great fun, the best fun. Tremendous.

Paul, actually, was himself a delegate in the League at LIMUN 2016, an experience so enjoyable that he came back to lead the committee this time around. A German from Munich, he is currently pursuing a degree at the Hult International Business School in London, where he also manages the logistics of their MUN club. Dalí, for his part, is a Dutch graduate of King’s College London, who’s spent far too big a portion of his life on LIMUN, including as Secretary-General of last year’s edition.

We both look forward to an energetic and well-informed crew of delegates with whom to have a fantastic few days! See you soon.

Dalí & Paul Get in touch at [email protected]!

3

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Introduction to the League of Nations

Born out of the horrors of the First World War, the League of Nations was an intergovernmental organisation created to regulate relations between states in the hope of maintaining international peace and security. It is the direct predecessor of the contemporary United Nations, which took over from the League following the latter’s failure to avoid a second general war.

The organisation was formally established in January 1920 upon the entry into force of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a treaty negotiated at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It stipulated that the League would consist of a select Council of members, an Assembly of all members, a Secretariat, and a host of associated bodies working on diverse issues. (We will simulate the assembly.)

The League enjoyed a number of relative successes, but from the outset was disadvantaged by lack of the United States, its key initial sponsor, among the membership, and by its internal mechanisms, not least reliance on full consensus. Members bore little respect for the Covenant’s core values, stirring conflict, building-up arms and casually joining and quitting the League to pursue short-term goals. Ultimately, the tides of nationalism, fascism, opportunism and narrow self-interest proved overwhelming and the Second World War broke out on the League’s watch.

It will be remembered as a vital stepping stone on the road to international organisation, and with some luck the experience of the League will remind us today of the fundamental importance of strong international institutions.

4

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Topic A: The Question of the War in Spain

1. Introduction

The Spanish Civil War that raged from 1936 to 1939 was a watershed conflict in the history of the 20th century, being considered a prelude to the Second World War. Originally a domestic matter with deep-seated roots in decades of instability and polarization, the war became a testing theatre for military methods subsequently employed by the Great Powers in the general war that followed. The Spanish conflict was also a microcosm of the wider rivalry that grappled Europe at the time, opposing the authoritarian and fascist far-rights to the democratic centrist and extremist lefts.

As this guide delves into below, the Civil War is rooted in an interplay of factors that go as far back as the early 19th century. Spain had become an increasingly unstable country fraught with economic distress, inequality, unrepresentative government and competing ideologies among other severe problems. Atop this background of instability came a period of extraordinary polarization fueled by rapid changes in power between leftist and right-wing forces which, combined with the international revolutionary climate, gave way to armed struggle for the country’s future.

The international community’s response, which we will now simulate, was highly disorganized and inconsistent. Some powers advocated non-interference, others blatantly interfered. None resolved the conflict but all continued to fuel its worsening. Will the League at LIMUN repeat this course or forge its own path?

5

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

2. Background to the conflict

The conflict that engulfed Spain, although by no means inevitable by the 1930s, had roots in the century or so that preceded Franco’s coup. This period was marked by the evolution of deep-seated instability, compounded by shorter-term polarization which ultimately gave way to civil war through a combination of immediate triggers. An understanding of the events in Spain requires an overview of each of these categories of causes.

2.1. Long-term instability (~1820-1923)

The history of Spain in the 19th and 20th centuries leading to the Civil War was marked by profound social, economic and political instability informed by a variety of events and actors with opposing interests. These principally include the following.  Economic discontent and rural unrest. The Spanish economy relied primarily upon agriculture, which employed a large majority of the population. Ownership of land was however deeply unequal, with large estates controlled by a small aristocratic class. Wages were kept low by an over-abundance of workers, and while in some regions peasants owned land of their own, the extent of their holdings tended to be too limited to make adequate livings. Employment in agriculture was also highly insecure, with labour often hired by the day and seasonal in nature, entailing work was generally only available for some 200 days a year. These phenomena led to the growth of trade-unionism, but unions failed to gain meaningful bargaining-power as landholders could easily hire labour from neighbouring regions. The result was frequent rioting in rural areas and increasing support for extreme leftist groups. Conditions were rarely better in urban centres, which steadily grew in the early 20th century. People often lived in overcrowded, unsanitary slums, living on low wages with long working-hours and no protection by social legislation. While Spain’s neutrality in the First World War led to overall growth, ensuing inflation rendered the lower classes poorer.  Weak government and the role of the army. The successive Spanish regimes and governments of the 19th and early 20th centuries did not stem the tide of rising tensions, by failing to redress socio-economic and political problems and entrenching divisions between the left and right. Government instability was compounded by the rather unique role that the Spanish army played in politics, by regularly intervening in the affairs of state. The army, in this way, overthrew the incumbent regime in 1820, 1871 and 1923, vacillating the country between absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, military dictatorship and republic on more than one occasion. This fundamentally lowered trust in government and respect for institutions. From 1871, Spain was formally a democratic constitutional monarchy (male vote only), with the king acting as head of state, and government business in the hands of a Prime Minister commanding a parliamentary majority. Elections rarely changed anything however, with real political power invested in an

6

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

oligarchy. The army, a strongly conservative force, had also become deeply unpopular, as it had gradually lost the Spanish Empire in the 19th century, lost the 1898 Spanish-American War, and struggled to keep a hold of Morocco (a Spanish colony from 1906).

 The role of the Catholic Church. Another polarizing actor in the Spanish landscape was the Catholic Church, a wealthy, conservative force deeply protective of its privileges. It was hallowed by conservatives, considered an integral part of the nation and its history for, among other reasons, having spearheaded the repulsion of Islamic invaders, led the fight against Protestantism and defeated Napoleon in the preceding centuries. The Church was however resented by substantial elements of the peasantry and leftist groups, as it owned vast amounts of land and fought back against demands for improved working conditions.  Separatism. A further complication was the movements for autonomy and independence in certain regions of Spain, namely Catalonia and the Basque lands where separate languages and cultures dominated. Catalonia was moreover a highly prosperous region relative to the rest of the country, and contributed far more funds to the central government than what it received in return. Not only did these calls for separation add to tensions in and of themselves, they furthermore fueled polarization between the left and right as the former tended to favour concessions for regional autonomy, while the latter was violently opposed to what it perceived as undermining the integrity of the nation.  The role of ideologies. The 19th and 20th centuries were also breeding grounds for all sorts of competing ideologies that fueled social movements and conflicts. These included a variety of Communist strands, the Social Darwinism that inspired Fascist movements, intense forms of Nationalism, more centrist trade-union Social Democracy, obscure Anarchism, remnants of monarchism – which were unusually strong in Spain, having fought three civil wars in the 19th century in this cause – as well as opposite faiths in democracy and authoritarianism. The whole of Europe was beholden to a war of ideas, especially in countries like the Soviet Union, where the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, and in Italy, where Benito Mussolini’s Fascists took power in 1923. The diversity of ideologies in this era had a strong impact on Spain, contributing to the foundering of coalition governments and to unstable polarization in society.

2.2. Short-term polarization (1923-1936)

Through the combination of factors considered above, Spain had become a highly divided and unstable country in the years preceding the Civil War. Between 1918 and 1923, no less than 12 coalition governments failed, leading to a bloodless military coup in 1923 perpetrated by General Miguel Primo de Rivera, who established himself as Prime Minister and effectively ruled as dictator. Modeled on the Italian Fascists, Primo de Rivera undertook large infrastructure and public spending programmes that stimulated production, but led to unsustainable government debt with the advent of the 1929 Wall Street Crash. He resigned in 1930, and ushered in a period of extraordinary polarization as government swung to the left, then right, and back left again.

In 1931, King Alfonso XIII went into voluntary exile, leading to Spain being proclaimed a republic again under the leadership of a President and Prime Minister. In ensuing free elections, the Spanish Socialist Party won a resounding victory following years of right-wing dominance under Primo de Rivera. With 116 of the 470 seats in parliament, however, a coalition had to be formed with other,

7

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

8

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017 less centrist left-wing parties, which made the government somewhat unstable from the start. Under Manuel Azaña, who variously served as President and Prime Minister, the left-wing government undertook a series of reforms. These were ultimately unsuccessful however, as the left found them too limited while the right felt imminently threatened. Land redistribution programmes failed to significantly redress rural poverty, while the church and land-owners resented the encroachment on their privileges. Azaña also sought to reduce the influence of the church and army. His government undertook to remove the church’s monopoly over the provision of education, legalized divorce, and reduced the number of army officers by offering early retirement. Catalonia, furthermore, was granted a greater degree of autonomy, including its own regional parliament. Right-wing antagonism grew, while in the meantime the effects of the Great Depression proved overwhelming as trade and output steadily fell despite Azaña’s efforts.

In the elections of 1933, a right-wing coalition came to power that sought to undo all reforms of the preceding government. The Catholic Church was given back control over education, and state subsidies that had previously been suspended were again offered. Catalonia’s autonomy was revoked, land-redistribution programmes were suspended indefinitely, trade-unions were subject to police monitoring and strikes could be violently broken up. The right, having felt threatened by the preceding left-wing government, had come into power more radicalized. In 1934, it had recourse to extreme armed force to put down a miners’ strike in the Asturias region of Spain, resulting in over 1,330 deaths and about 3,000 people wounded. Discord within the governing coalition gave way to other elections, propelling another left-wing coalition under Manuel Azaña – who had spent time in prison – to power in February 1936.

2.3. Immediate triggers (1936)

Azaña’s new government, known as the Popular Front, included radical elements but did not pursue a particularly radical agenda, seeking to continue the reforms of the 1931-1933 leftist government. By that time, however, polarization had reached uncontrollable heights, and with the overt support of the Soviet Union to leftist parties across Europe, the right-wing in Spain was convinced the country stood on the brink of a communist-inspired revolution. This impression was not abated by violence opposing anarchist and fascists, and by general strikes throughout May and June 1936.

Plans for a coup were underway among elements within the army, under the leadership of key military figures including Generals Emilio , who died soon thereafter in 1937, and Francisco Franco, who ultimately led the rebellion. The uprising was initiated on 17 July in Morocco, where the army’s most professional and prestigious forces were stationed. While it was intended to be a swift coup d’état, the rebel forces failed to take key urban centers on the mainland including Barcelona and Madrid. As a result, the coup failed and ushered in instead a three-year civil war opposing two camps, the Nationalist and Republican forces.

9

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

3. Current situation

Today is 25 September 1936, when the League of Nations Assembly convenes for its regular session. War in Spain has been raging for two months; the whole country is deeply divided between supporters of Franco’s Nationalists and the left-wing Republicans. Franco gets support from the church, monarchists and aristocrats. The left-wing forces consist of the government, socialists, anarchists, peasants and factory-workers. A majority of territory is still under Republican control. But more and more areas, including important cities and places, fall to Franco.

The international community is uncertain of its response, most of all Britain and France, which have by now officially committed to a policy of non-intervention agreed to by all major powers, even though it is no secret it’s being entirely ignored. Italy and Germany are aiding the Nationalists, while the Soviet Union is cautiously supporting the Republicans. Portugal has declared support for the Nationalist forces because of its poor relationship with the current Spanish government. It has committed to providing weapons and other forms of military support to Franco’s cause. The Republicans also get help from Mexico, but its effectiveness is limited. The most influential powers, Britain and France, are indecisive, being as of yet unsure of which threat is greatest – the Fascism of Adolf Hitler or the Communism of Joseph Stalin? Each supports one side, and would likely make of Spain a form of client state should their side win.

4. Timeline

1931-1933 Manuel Azaña leads a left-wing government.

1933-1936 A coalition of right wing and centrist parties rule Spain.

February 1936 The left-wing Popular Front wins the Spanish elections under former President and Prime Minister Azaña.

March 1936 Tension rises, violent attacks increase, the Fascist Falange party gets banned. April 1936 Killings of political opponents arise in parts of Spain. Parts of the country descend into chaos.

May 1936 Street riots and strikes disrupt Spain’s economy.

July 1936 A military uprising starts in the Spanish part of Morocco and parts of mainland Spain. General Franco arrives in Morocco and takes control over the army, leading it to the Spanish mainland. German and Italian planes lift Franco’s army from Spanish Morocco to the Southern part of Spain, where the army occupies parts of Spain, including Cadiz. Civil war begins. Hitler’s Germany supports the Nationalists under Franco. Stalin’s Soviet Union reacts and agrees to support the Republicans with limited military aid.

August 1936 France and Britain commit to non-interference.

September 1936 The League of Nations meets to address the problem of war in Spain. 10

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

5. Questions a resolution should address In responding to the War in Spain, delegates will want to take into account the following:  Whether the international community should uphold a principle of non-interference. If so, how? If not, will states want to coordinate bloc efforts or pursue individual policies? Are there any strategic/commercial interests that may motivate a particular course of action?  Should a settlement be pursued between the warring factions? If so, what provisions should it include?  How will the international community deal with the humanitarian consequences of the war? Delegates should be reminded that all resolutions in the League of Nations Assembly require full consensus by all member-states.

6. Further Reading

The account presented above, including images, is principally based upon three high-school textbooks on this topic (1, 2, 3). As the Spanish Civil War is a widely studied subject, textbooks, articles or internet sources are easy to come by. Sources on 20th century history generally with sub- sections on Spain are equally likely to offer useful overviews. Delegates are encouraged to read narratives of the causes of the war to gain a stronger grasp. This guide, in the interest of brevity, has refrained from providing specific but important details regarding incidents and actors involved in causing the war, or of discussing the factors that led to states, such as Britain and France, to take the positions they ultimately assumed. These are all areas delegates would do well to explore further.

You’re also encouraged to watch Land and Freedom, an enjoyable 1995 film on the Spanish Civil War, inspired by George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia.

11

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Topic B: Resolution of the Colombo-Peruvian Dispute

1. Introduction

The brief Colombo-Peruvian border war of 1933, commonly called the Leticia Dispute, is a little known armed conflict that pitted against , over a piece of Amazonian territory around the small port city of Leticia. While it started as an accident neither side had intended, circumstance, happenstance and a degree of ill-will led to an undeclared and limited war which, like the more prominent conflicts of the time, put international institutions to the test.

Today we remember the League of Nations mostly as an abject failure. Not only did the League fail to accomplish its chief purpose – to avoid another world war – it equally failed to address flagrant violations of international law including the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria and the Italian war on Ethiopia. But these failures obscure a certain number of successes, including the League’s skillful resolution of the Leticia Dispute. With the Spanish Civil War, another item of League failure, on our agenda, the committee would do well to explore a brighter side of the UN’s predecessor. That is, if LIMUN delegates succeed in reproducing an agreement acceptable to both parties of the conflict.

The League’s success in resolving the Colombo-Peruvian war led to one important commentator proclaiming, when the final agreement was ratified in 1934, that “This is one of the great days in the history of the League. A dispute, which threatened to involve two noble peoples in the horrors of war has just been settled through the application of the principles, the intervention, and the collaboration of the organizations of the League”. This conflict is also of further interest as the first- ever occurrence of an international force; the Leticia Dispute gave birth to what would later become the key UN role of peacekeeping. 12

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

2. Background to the conflict

2.1. Origins of the dispute

In the early 19th century, the Spanish Empire successively lost its South American dependencies, spawning, among other countries, Colombia in 1810 and Peru in 1821. With borders in the Amazonian region unclearly demarcated for much of the following century, both countries and others made war upon each other, and variously engaged in negotiations that produced numerous agreements. For Colombia and Peru this culminated, in March 1922, in the Salomón-Lozano Treaty. Intended to settle any and all territorial disputes between the two countries, this treaty stipulated that “all disputes which have arisen in the past with respect to the boundaries between Colombia and Peru are hereby finally and irrevocably settled”. It came into force in March 1928.

During the night of 31 August to 1 September 1932, a group of some 200 , mostly ordinary citizens with some soldiers, disapproving of the Salomón-Lozano Treaty, marched into Colombian territory and seized a small port city, Leticia. Located at a crossroad of the Puntomayo and Maranon, branches of the , Leticia is remote and of limited commercial or strategic interest. Nonetheless, the band of Peruvians seized control of the town, expelled local , and extended their control to the surrounding territory, roughly equal to the size of Belgium. The area had erstwhile been Peruvian, but was ceded to Colombia in 1928 as the Salomón-Lozano Treaty entered into force, with the new boundaries confirmed in September 1930.

At first, the Peruvian government disavowed the invaders, denying any complicity. But when Colombia expressed its intention to retake the region by force, Peru protested and intimated it may respond with military force of its own. While Peru continued to affirm Colombia’s right to the territory as per the 1922 Treaty, it offered two arguments to justify its tacit support of the invaders:  The Salomón-Lozano Treaty had to be revised because a considerable number of the inhabitants of the region were of Peruvian nationality and wished to remain Peruvian, even though their homes were now in Colombia. The Treaty had been concluded without consulting them, by the dictatorial regime of President Augusto Leguía who held power from 1919 until he was overthrown in August 1930. Peru offered to compensate Colombia if the latter were willing to negotiate granting Leticia back to Peru.  Peru’s second argument was that, while recognising Colombia’s sovereignty over the disputed area, it still had a duty to protect its citizens there, including the rogue invaders, who were under the threat of severe violence. Colombia retorted it simply intended to carry out its sovereign right to restore order within its own borders. Consequently, Colombia and Peru disputed the territory from September 1932 to May 1933, as national sentiment in both countries hardened. The dispute included armed conflict from February to May 1933 that resulted in the deaths of multiple hundreds.

Below features an excerpt of the most valuable historical source on this subject: the League of Nations Official Journal of April 1933, a 91-page document that details every step of the dispute and presents original correspondence between Colombia, Peru and other actors involved. The excerpts below are summaries of the respective Colombian and Peruvian arguments.

13

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

14

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

2.2. Mediation efforts, international involvement and war

The Leticia Dispute demonstrates how, with political will, the international community can fulfil the elusive goal of maintaining peace and security. The conflict did not affect entrenched outside interests that fueled the war (in contrast to the Spanish Civil War); rather, external interests favoured quick and peaceful resolution, which led to intense efforts at mediation. In particular, , which borders Colombia and Peru near Leticia, wished to avoid conflict that could hamper use of the Amazon so near its own territory. The United States, desirous of maintaining its sphere of influence in Latin America, also took a strong interest in seeing the conflict resolved.

Early in the dispute on 3 October 1932, Peru proposed that the situation be referred to the Conciliation Commission of the Pan-American Union, the predecessor of the contemporary Organization of American States. Colombia however refused on 13 October, stating that this was a purely internal matter within its own exclusive jurisdiction. Around this time, both Colombia and Peru were shoring up their armed forces, specifically air and naval, the only feasible means to access the remote Leticia region. The image opposite depicts an original article of The New York Times dated 21 September 1932.

The second attempt at mediation came from Brazil, which, on 8 January 1933, offered to deescalate tensions by taking temporary control of Leticia and the surrounding area over from the Peruvians, and passing it to Colombia without Peruvian and Colombian forces ever coming into contact. Negotiations about a sustainable solution to Leticia could then take place afterwards. While Colombia agreed, Peru demanded that Brazil keep a hold of the area while negotiations take place. This was unacceptable to Colombia. Further pressure was applied unsuccessfully by Henry Stimson, the United States Secretary of State, who concurred with Colombia that Peru violated the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which renounced armed force as a means to settle disputes. The image left features part of a 25 January New York Times article announcing Stimson’s move.

At the same time, in the first days of 1933 Colombia sent a fleet of some six vessels and roughly 1,500 troops to sail the Amazon to Leticia. The fleet moved deliberately slow and halted on more than one occasion, likely to use the threat of violence to Colombia’s negotiating advantage without actually being used. Nonetheless, as early as 6 January, Peruvian forces had communicated to the fleet commander that it would be attacked should it continue on its

15

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017 course. This dramatically increased the likelihood of conflict, which many within Colombia and Peru were now beginning to see as inevitable.

The first clash took place on 14 February, at the river town of Tarapacá. (See below for an explanatory map from the New York Times published the following day.) The town, situated in Colombia, was held by Peruvian forces to, according to Peru, protect its nationals in the area against potential attack. Control of this and other similar towns was key to holding the area along the important waterway of the . As such, on 14 February the commander of the Colombian fleet demanded that Peruvian forces depart from Tarapacá, with the imminent threat of violence. In response, Peruvian planes sought to bomb the Colombian vessels, but were repelled by Colombian airforce. Troops subsequently disembarked on Tarapacá and easily took control.

The second battle took place on 25 March, when two Colombian gunboats, supported by airpower, attacked the Putumayan town of Güeppi (near the triple border between Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. With infantry, air-support and gunboat bombing, Colombian troops seized the town. Subsequently, in April, Peru attacked two different towns but failed to capture either.

16

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

2.3. Role of the League of Nations

The League of Nations had been alerted of the dispute as early as 12 November 1932, by a telegram from the government of Ecuador to the Secretary-General of the League, British diplomat Sir Eric Drummond. This was conveyed to the Council, which however did not take notice while the dispute was yet in its early phase.

Colombia formally requested League involvement on 2 January 1933, providing details about the events since September. “The information received by the League of Nations showed that the question was more and more likely to lead to a serious conflict between the two countries”, reads the journal of the League. As a result, following a series of exchanges between the Council and Colombia and Peru to urge restraint, the dispute was formally placed on the Council’s agenda for 24 January. It was decided that a special Committee of Three be named to explore the situation and recommend steps forward. Representatives of Ireland, Spain and Guatemala were selected. Two days later, on 26 January, upon recommendation of the Committee, the Council transmitted telegrams to both Colombia and Peru. The one to Peru partly read that the Council felt “bound to draw attention of the Peruvian Government to the fact that it is the duty of Peru, as a Member of the League, to refrain from any intervention by force on Colombian territory”. Put diplomatically, the Council had hereby largely placed blame on Peru for the confrontation.

Brazil abandoned its proposal for mediation on 3 February, and armed conflict had broken out on 14 February. In response, in a Council meeting of 21 February, the League decided to take a more active role. It asked the Committee to draft a proposal for the settlement of the dispute, which it promptly did, making three key recommendations on 25 February:  Peru was requested to evacuate the territory, which would be placed under temporary administration of the League.  Colombian forces, and others if necessary, would be placed in the territory under command of the League. (It is worth noting here that, never before in history, had such an experiment been undertaken.)  Colombia and Peru, with League supported if needed, would have to reach terms amenable to both countries, until which time the League would maintain formal control of the area. While this proposal was accepted by Colombia, Peru refused on the ground that Colombian forces could hardly be considered unbiased international troops. Growing more aggravated with Peru, the Council, on 18 March, called its occupation of Colombian territory “incompatible with international law”, and urged immediate negotiations. Conflict continued, however, with the Battle of Güeppi and further confrontations in April.

17

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

3. Current situation

Today is 1 May 1933, and the Assembly of the League of Nations is gathering to consider the dispute between Colombia and Peru over Leticia and the surrounding region. Several hundreds have died since 14 February – though mostly due to tropical diseases rather than direct conflict – and there remains a possibility that the war will draw in Brazil and Ecuador. So far, only the Council of the League has been involved (United Kingdom, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Poland and Spain) but now the whole of the League membership is to consider the matter.

Yesterday on April 30, President Sanchez Cerro of Peru, who had taken power in 1930 in a coup against the unpopular President Leguía, was assassinated by a political opponent. The Colombian Congress selected Oscar Benevides, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, as the new President. He is known to have less appetite for conflict with Colombia than his predecessor.

4. Timeline

1810 gains independence from Spanish Empire.

1821 Peru gains independence from Spanish Empire.

1821-1933 Various border disputes and treaties in .

1922 & 1928 Signing and entry into force of Salomón-Lozano Treaty.

1930 President Augusto Leguía of Peru is overthrown.

1 Sept 1932 Peruvians take control of Leticia and move on surrounding region.

Oct 1932 Peru proposes the situation be considered by Pan-American Union. Colombia refuses. Dispute escalates.

2 Jan 1933 Colombia requests League of Nations become involved.

8 Jan 1933 Brazil offers to mediate with proposal.

24 Jan 1933 Council of League of Nations appoints Committee of Three.

3 Feb 1933 Brazil abandons mediation effort following Peruvian opposition.

14 Feb 1933 Battle of Tarapacá.

25 Feb 1933 Committee of Three makes proposal.

25Mar 1933 Battle of Güeppi.

Apr 1933 Further skirmishes between Peru and Colombia.

30 Apr 1933 Assassination of President Cerro. Benevides assumes presidency.

18

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

5. Further reading The Leticia Dispute is a highly under-studied conflict, leaving limited resources for delegates to consult. The narrative provided here has been based chiefly on three primary source articles that delegates would do well to read:  The most helpful is “The Settlement of the Leticia Dispute”, published in 1934 in The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly.  Also useful is “The Leticia Dispute between Colombia and Peru”, published in April 1933 in The American Journal of International Law.  Somewhat useful is “The ”, published in December 1932 in World Affairs. Some more contemporary studies are also available:  “’We Have Been Making History’: The League of Nations and the Leticia Dispute (1932- 1934)” was published in October 2016 in The International History Review. It has however not been consulted in producing this guide.  “Chapter 12: The Leticia Dispute” in Latin America’s Wars Volume II: The Age of the Professional Soldier, 1900-2001 was published in 2003 and offers a useful overview of the military history of the Dispute. Two further primary sources are invaluable:  The “Official Journal of the League of Nations of April 1933” offers a detailed review of the conflict, including telegrams of Colombian, Peruvian, League and other officials.  The New York Times took a vivid interest in the Dispute and covered it intensely, as the extracts included in this guide show. Every step of the conflict is recorded, as seen through the eyes of people who were there when events took place. Delegates can consult The New York Times Archive and search based on dates and key words. Subscription to The Times is needed, but specific articles can be requested from Dalí & Paul if you do not a subscription.

Finally, this guide has stopped short of narrating events beyond 1 May 1933, but the conflict kept on going until 24 May. This has been done deliberately to avoid prescribing policy to delegates, but you may still find it useful to read about what ultimately happened…

19

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Conference Information When looking for information regarding LIMUN 2017 (and subsequent editions) your first step should be to visit our website: www.limun.org.uk

LIMUN on social media Please follow updates from us through our social media channels:

London International Model United Nations (LIMUN)

@LondonMUN

When tweeting about this year’s conference (your preparations, journey to/from London or when live-tweeting the events during the conference itself) –

- please use hashtag #LIMUN2017

Agenda & Rules of Procedure The agenda for the 2017 conference is available online at www.limun.org.uk/agenda

Since its 17th session last year, LIMUN has introduced changes to its Rules of Procedure. The revised Rules can be accessed here: http://limun.org.uk/rules

20