North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

MUNUC 32 UPDATE PAPER

Treaty Writing

Treaty writing can be a long and complicated process. The following is an outline of key areas to consider when drafting the foundational documents of any treaty organization, and specifically relate to the issues surrounding the creation of NATO.

A key part of any treaty is the creation of well-defined terms. Not every situation will be able to be accounted for in a treaty, so it is important to use well-defined, but broad, definitions that can be easily applied to any circumstance. For example, consider a section from Article IV of the Brussels Treaty that states if any member of the treaty “should be the object of an armed attack in Europe the other High Contracting Parties will ... afford the

Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.” This section well defines the terms for invoking Article IV: there must be an attack made against the country that occurs within Europe. One might desire a further explanation of what the term

“object of an armed attack” means (does this include attacks against non-military citizens not located in their country but still within Europe?), but this does work as a broad explanation of what circumstances allow for the treaty to be invoked.

Moreover, a well-defined treaty is not necessarily restrictive or exhaustive. Indeed, the strength of many treaties lies in their ability to be adaptable. The Brussels Treaty

provides a further example of how well-defined terms can be employed effectively while still being broad. The assistance described in Article IV can be military aid or other sorts of aid.

There are no specifications about amount of aid given, or specific forms of that aid (e.g. that member nations specifically give warships, airplanes, or food). This allows for the treaty to apply to a large swathe of situations. Such minute details will also likely prove irrelevant to the formation of NATO as an organization. The treaty that this body creates should be clear, give definitions when necessary, and easily apply to a wide range of circumstances

Finally, as members of the United Nations, it is important to bear in mind that whatever is agreed to within the treaty should work in conjunction with the terms of the

United Nations charter, and therefore seek to include the channels the United Nations provides for resolving interstate conflicts. The acknowledgment of the United Nations need not be extensive. For example, Article IV of the Brussels Treaty states that any aid given will be “in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Though brief, this nod towards the role of the United Nations is crucial in crafting international agreements.

Ultimately this body is tasked with making a new treaty organization best suited for the problems of the modern day. Though it may prove prudent to draw on previously drafted international agreements, the document created should be unique to this body. In drafting this treaty, it will certainly be important to keep in mind the points mentioned above, but the members of this organization are encouraged to think creatively about how best to address the issues they face. Only then will the institution created by these negotiations truly be successful in achieving its aims.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Topic A: International Security

MUNUC 32 UPDATE PAPER

The Korea Conflict

The time is early-1949, and tensions are running high between the Republic of

Korea and People’s Republic of Korea. The political bodies have had a short and insecure existence to date, only coming into being at the close of WW2 when negotiations between the Soviet-occupied North and the US-occupied South with the aim of an independent

Korea broke down. Following separate elections in 1948 held on both sides of the 38th parallel that divided them, the communist People’s Republic of Korea led by guerrilla fighter Kim Il-Sung was established in the North; likewise for the capitalist Republic of

Korea under the authoritarian and fervently anti-communist Syngman Rhee in the South.

Both governments proclaimed themselves as the legitimate representative of the entire

Korea; neither accepted the legality of their border.

Intensifying the inherent conflict between the competing claims and political ideologies of the Koreas has been on-going, if undeclared, military conflict. Not only have there been division-level clashes along the border, but multiple PROK-backed guerrilla insurgencies have erupted along the Southern peninsula since the ROK’s founding, with renewed activity in the spring of 1949. These uprisings, such as the Yeosu-Suncheon

Rebellion, have resulted in the brutal massacre of thousands of allegedly right-leaning civilians; they have elicited a commensurably brutal response from the ROK, which, with the aid of a few hundred American officers, has engaged in violent reprisals and arrests in an effort to repress opposition. Though the ROK has been successful in crushing such uprisings, communist guerrillas have progressively entrenched themselves in border provinces, while around 8, 000 South Korean soldiers and police have been killed as a result of border clashes and insurgencies.[1]

The contemporary geopolitical context also signals a potential future escalation of tensions. It is becoming increasingly clear that the communists led by Mao Zedong in neighbouring China are on the path to win the Chinese Civil War. Korean and Chinese communist forces have cooperated in the past – if it is to occur again there is a threat that the People’s Liberation Army could significantly tip the scales militarily in favour of the

PROK. Moreover, there is the threat of Soviet intervention for the PROK: indeed, in

March 1949 Kim Il-Sung has already visited Moscow in an attempt to convince Stalin to support an invasion of the South.[2] However, the US monopoly on the atomic bomb still remains a significant deterrent to any explicit and direct action.

The ROK’s military capacity remains unimpressive. Southern security forces numbered 80, 000 in 1947; by contrast Northern military and security forces number 100,

000.[3] Moreover, most of the ROK’s soldiers are trained mainly in counter-insurgency rather than outright war, while military equipment is also lacking, with the army not even possessing a single tank - the US military up to this point has denied such requests. Further, the US troops stationed in the South only number in the low hundreds, though substantial ground and air forces are stationed in Japan.[4] In the event of war there is no guarantee that the South will triumph without aid.

Bibliography

[1] Encyclopedia Britannica: Korean War

[2] Kathryn Weathersby, “Should We Fear This?” Stalin and the Danger of War with America (2002), 3-4.

[3] Encyclopedia Britannica: Korean War

[4] Roy E Appleman, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu, 3.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Topic A: International Security

MUNUC 32 UPDATE PAPER

Casus Belli

The phrase “casus belli” – Latin for “an occasion/cause for war” – refers to a circumstance, action, or event which provides a justification for armed conflict. The concept is intimately tied to the concept of just war, and the intellectual history surrounding the idea of “civilized” warfare vis-a-vis barbaric warfare. The idea that wars can be just or unjust is very old. Aspirational codes of behavior such as chivalry existed for warriors in Europe from at least the high Middle Ages. However, within international law, the idea of just behavior in conflict is only about 100 years old, and the majority of that history deals not with restrictions of the causes of war but with restrictions of the weaponry, methods, and practices permitted while waging war.

The history of international legal restrictions on the initiation of warfare is largely confined to the period between the World Wars. The Nuremberg trials, conducted shortly after the complete end of World War II, were the first legal actions (as opposed to simply punitive actions, such as Napoleon’s exiles) taken against the leaders of an aggressor power at least in part because it was an aggressor power. The indictment of several Nazi high officials included a charge of “Crimes against the Peace” and termed wars of aggression

unlawful. The only strong precedent for such a statement is the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a treaty in which signatories agreed not to engage in war except in cases of self-defense.

In regards to the creation of a charter for what may or may not be termed NATO, casus belli will be relevant in two senses. First, the alliance charter must establish when, if ever, the alliance will go to war together. Collective defense is one of the main reasons you are meeting here to draft this charter. If the alliance does not have a clear definition on when and where that collective defensive commitment leads to war, members and adversaries may wish to exploit that ambiguity. Second, the alliance needs to decide whether they wish to respect the newly articulated ideas of aggressive wars being illegal and, if so, how the charter will ensure that the alliance respects those laws. Will the alliance countenance a member to wage wars outside the alliance, aggressive or not? These questions will be key to your answer of how NATO addresses collective defense.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Topic A: International Security

MUNUC 32 UPDATE PAPER

Transcript of a Radio Broadcast during the Berlin Airlift

You’re listening to Voice of America. I’m Chuck Smith. Time is 11:00am, March 22,

1948. Nine months have passed since the start of the Soviet Berlin Blockade and the resounding Allied effort of the Berlin Airlift to sustain Berlin. Here’s a special report from

Berlin by our own Charlie Rogers.

{Buzz of airplanes in the background}

Here at Tempelhof Airport in the Allied zone of Berlin, British and American planes land and take off every 45-90 seconds, 24 hours, seven days a week. These planes bring over 5,000 tons food, fuel, and other necessities every day to sustain a city of two and a quarter million. This massive humanitarian aid effort is unprecedented. It is in the spirit of the Marshall plan, as America leads the charge to rebuild Europe after the ravages of WWII and fight the communist threat.

Still, the Soviets continue to blockade the city, cutting off all power, food, roads, and trains to Berlin.

The Soviets began their blockade on June 24 of last year, which they said was in response to Allied efforts to introduce the Deutschmark into the Allied area of Berlin. The

Allies were faced with two options: cave into Soviet demands and abandon free Berlin or manage to circumvent the blockade.

The Allies chose to stand strong against the Soviet threat and initiated the Berlin airlift, bringing Berlin’s necessities via humanitarian aid flights organized by the U.S and the

U.K.

There was doubt that Berlin could make it through the winter while blockaded, due to the massive quantities of resources needed and the Berlin fog that made flying conditions hazardous. That doubt was disproven; Berlin made it through the winter.

Lt. Gail Halvorsen told me of the importance of the airlift, “We learned very clearly that the new enemy was Stalin. He was taking over where Hitler left off. We knew exactly what Stalin had in mind.”

Lt. Halvorsen was the first of the now-world renowned candy bombers. In July, he began dropping candy attached to little parachutes on his airlift routes. Now many of the pilots have followed suit, dropping candy from their planes to give to very appreciative

German children.

Erika Demitrowitz, a 24-year-old Berlin resident, expressed her gratitude for the airlift, telling me, “our enemies who had once dropped bombs on us were now bringing us food and coal to heat our homes with.”

Cars have even been transported to Berlin, in addition to coal and food.

10s of American and British have died in the airlift so far, who gave their lives to protect Berlin against the communist threat. Their sacrifices saved millions from the brink of starvation

Despite 10th months of Soviet blockade, with no end in sight, Berlin, a beacon of

Western democracy, surrounded by the Iron Curtain, stands strong, thanks to the Berlin

Airlift.

11:05am, Berlin. Back to you Chuck.

Bibliography

Central Office of Information. “Berlin Airlift.” 1949. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/filmpage_ba.htm.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Berlin Blockade.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., December 13, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/event/Berlin-blockade.

Finn, Tara. “Coal, Calories and Candy Bombers: the Berlin Airlift 1948-9.” History of government. Foreign affairs and diplomacy, Foreign Office Historians, June 18, 2018. https://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/18/coal-calories-and-candy-bombers-the-berlin- airlift-1948-9/.

Grunbacher, Armin. “Cold War History: The Berlin Blockade and Airlift.” Cold War History: The Berlin Blockade and Airlift - University of Birmingham. University of Birmingham. Accessed January 6, 2020. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/cold-war-history-the-berlin- blockade-and-airlift.aspx

James, Kyle. “Remembering The Berlin Airlift, 60 Years Later.” NPR, September 14, 2008. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92597573.

Nelsson, Richard. “The Berlin Blockade - Archive, 1948.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, July 27, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive- blog/2018/jul/27/berlin-blockade-cold-war-1948.

Office of the Historian “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations: The Berlin Airlift, 1948-1949.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Accessed January 6, 2020. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift.

Smith, Nick. “Book Interview: Barry Turner, 'The Berlin Airlift'.” Engineering and Technology Magazine, July 20, 2018. https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/07/book-interview-barry-turner-the-berlin- airlift/.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Topic B: Organization Administration and Expansion

MUNUC 32 UPDATE PAPER

Nuclear Proliferation

Prior to 1949, the year this committee took place, nuclear monopoly had been achieved by the United States as it developed its first atomic bombs and applied them in warfare. Both the destructive power of nuclear weapon and the diplomatic influences it yields greatly provoked the Soviet Union, which redirected its full industrial might towards the development of its own atomic bomb immediately after the end of WWII.[1]

Eventually, the Soviet Union used spying to catch up to U.S. nuclear program years ahead of American predictions – as of early 1949, the Soviet Union may be on the very brink of testing its own atomic bomb.[2] This is the first case of nuclear proliferation after the discovery of atomic energy.

Meanwhile, the international community was largely cautious against the usage and development of atomic weapons. The United Nations Atomic Energy Commission

(UNAEC) was founded on January 24, 1946, as a subdivision of the United Nations ‘to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy.’[3] On June 14, 1946, the

United States presented the Baruch Plan to the commission, offering to destroy its nuclear arsenal on the condition that the U.N. imposes controls on atomic development that would

not be subject to United Nations Security Council veto.[4] The Soviet Union, with their own nuclear project underway, vetoed the plan, and effectively ended any immediate postwar negotiations on atomic energy.

In 1949, however, news of the rapid development of the Soviet atomic bomb project changed the situation surrounding nuclear weapons drastically. As a response to the

Soviet Union’s attempts to gain access to nuclear weapons, President Truman considered initiating a program to develop the hydrogen bomb. As tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union surrounding atomic power grew, compromises and disarmament of the two superpower’s arsenal seemed increasingly unlikely. Ultimately, if the Soviets acquired a nuclear bomb, it would mark the beginning of nuclear arms race throughout the

Cold War.

Aside from the United States and the Soviet Union, other major countries around the globe are also developing their own nuclear weapon through technology sharing from the two superpowers. The United Kingdom, France, and China have all indicated interest in building their own atomic bombs. However, at the current time, these projects were all classified, largely unknown to the international community, or effectively non-existent.

Delegates of the committee must be mindful of the differences between the 1949 international community and the current one upon the topic of nuclear proliferation. The biggest challenge would be to assume the atmosphere of uncertainty, as the concept of nuclear supremacy and the balance of nuclear powers were largely immature. Should countries possessing atomic weapons allow its allies to acquire nuclear technology as well?

Should atomic weapons be used in response to conventional aggressions? Should NATO, and international organization, formulate policies over the usage of atomic weapons in

warfare? These are all questions that do not have definitive answers in 1949, and should be decided by fellow delegates through discussions and compromises.

Bibliography

[1] Josephson, Paul R, Early Years of Soviet Nuclear Physics.

[2] Podvig, P. L. Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces. Cambridge, 2004.

[3] United Nations General Assembly. Session 1 Resolution 1, 1946.

[4] Rumble, Greville. The Politics of Nuclear Defence: a Comprehensive Introduction, 1985.