Our responsibilities for future generations 13 – 18 August 2017

Historical Security Council

Official Study Guide

Lena Stránská, Konstantina Nathanail

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WORDS OF WELCOME .................................................................................................... 2

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW – SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS .. 3 FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND PROCEDURES OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL .......................................................... 3 MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL ................................................................................................................. 4

TOPIC A: CRISIS IN RWANDA 1994: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ALL OVER AGAIN? ................................................................................................................................ 6

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 8 COLONIZATION RULE IN RWANDA (TURN OF THE CENTURY – 1962) ....................................................................... 8 KEY ACTORS, TERMS AND CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................. 10 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CURRENT CHALLENGES ................................................................................... 11 OVERVIEW OF IMPORTANT FACTS ..................................................................................................................... 13 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION SHOULD ANSWER ................................................................................................ 13 RECOMMENDED READING .................................................................................................................................. 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

TOPIC B: THE CYPRUS DISPUTE: DIVIDED WE STAND, UNITED WE FALL? . 17 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 17 KEY ACTORS, CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................ 18 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 20 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CURRENT CHALLENGES ................................................................................... 22 OVERVIEW OF IMPORTANT FACTS ..................................................................................................................... 23 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION SHOULD ANSWER ................................................................................................ 24 RECOMMENDED READINGS ................................................................................................................................. 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................... 26

2

Words of Welcome

Dear Delegates,

It is our pleasure to officially welcome you to the Historical Security Council of this year’s

BerlInMUN! Those of you that have attended a similar conference in the past already know

what a unique experience MUN is. For the newcomers, we can assure you that participating

in the Historical SC will allow you to expand your knowledge, engage in problem solving,

develop your language, communication and negotiation skills and offer you the opportunity

to meet people with diverse ideas and backgrounds.

Through the lens of the Historical Committee you will have the chance and duty to assess

past decisions and, while being aware of the impact they had on how our world looks today,

reach similar or differing agreements. This is also how our Committee is directly connected

with this year’s theme ‘Our responsibilities for future generations’: In order for us to carry and

fulfill responsibilities for the generations to come, one needs to evaluate actions of the past

and, thereby, perhaps decide to alter the route of the history currently in the making.

The expectations concerning the Committee work are high and we hope that you will do

your best during the sessions. However, we expect from you no more than what we know

you can offer. You are strongly encouraged to be fully prepared and well informed about

current issues, since the more thoroughly you research the more interesting the debate will

be. Please be aware that during debate you are representing your country’s policy and not

your own, regardless of any moral qualms that may arise.

We hope to see motivated and well-prepared delegates and we, as your Chairs, promise to

be objective and encouraging; and to devote time and effort in order to establish an

interesting and beneficial experience for all of us!

Sincerely,

Konstantina Nathanail and Lena Stránská

3

Committee Overview – Security Council of the United Nations

Upon establishment of the United Nations (UN)

in 1945, the Security Council (SC) was created as

one of its six primary institutions, along with the

General Assembly (GA), the Trusteeship Council,

the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the

International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the

Secretariat, headed by the Secretary General

(SG).1 Since its establishment, the SC has been

granted the highest responsibility for maintenance

of international peace and security. Comprising

fewer Member States than the all-encompassing

GA, it was to provide a more flexible and swifter

decision-making in times of crises. Also, born

directly after World War II., it was to permanently bring together the greatest powers of

the world and thus ensure, no similar atrocities will ever be repeated.

Functions, powers and procedures of the Security Council While protecting international peace and security, the SC has been given the right of

decision-making on behalf of all Member States of the UN. In other words, resolutions

produced by the SC are binding for all members of the UN, even those that are not

currently sitting on the SC and those, who do not agree with it.

The SC is at all times bound by the Purposes and Principles of the UN as specified in

Chapter One of the UN Charter.2 Measures the SC can use in the name of international

peace and security are further specified in Chapters Six, Seven, Eight and Twelve.3 Although

1 Charter of the United Nations, Article 7. 2 Charter of the United Nations, Articles 1 and 2. 3 Charter of the United Nations, Article 24.

Source:https://www.google.cz/search?q=un+security+council+logo&rlz=1C1SAVS_enCZ545CZ545&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3zYen2brTAhVDthQKHZeVBfQQ_AUIBigB&biw=1522&bih=774&dpr=1.25#imgrc=pbe0xlgv8nu6JM:

4

the GA or other bodies are allowed to act under Chapters Six, Eight and Twelve, the SC is

the only one given the right to act under Chapter Seven. This makes it the only body that is

legally allowed to use force.

Measures under Chapters Six and Seven represent a large, yet not exhausted, range of

measures the SC is entitled to use. Pacific settlement of disputes in Chapter Six

encompasses possibilities such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial

settlement.4 Chapter Seven was created to provide the SC with measures in case of Threats

to the peace, Breaches of the peace and Acts of Aggression. The SC can opt for measures

short of force, usually in the form of sanctions, based on Article 41 or it can decide to use

force, which the Article 42 further specifies.5 The so-called Chapter Six and a Half eventually

crystalized between them. It represents peacekeeping operations not mentioned in the

Charter that eventually became one of the most frequently used means to sustain

international peace and security.

Decisions in the SC are adopted by voting. Every Member State has one vote. A regular

majority of nine affirmative votes is necessary. Article 27 of the UN Charter specifies that

“(d)ecisions … shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes

of the permanent members…”.6 In practice, a negative vote by one of the permanent

members or an insufficient number of affirmative votes mean a matter at hand has not been

adopted.

Each Member State currently in the SC must have one diplomat present in the UN

Headquarter at all times. These diplomats also take up the position of the SC President. The

presidency is rotational on a monthly basis. Countries proceed in an alphabetical order.

Members of the Security Council Initially, the SC had eleven members. Five of them, representing the strongest powers of

that time, were made permanent (P5) with the right to veto any decision. Those were

France, Soviet Union, Republic of China, United Kingdom and United States. Additionally,

there were six non-permanent (elected) members. Elected for two years by the GA, these

4 Charter of the United Nations, Article 33. 5 Charter o the United Nations, Articles 41 and 42. 6 Charter of the United Nations, Article 27.

5

countries were tasked with representing of their regional groupings, who preselect them

before the actual election in the GA. Besides being non-permanent, they also do not have

the right of veto.

Two changes in the composition of the P5 have occurred thus far. Following a thaw in

relations between the USA and People´s Republic of China, the latter replaced the Republic

of China in the SC in October 1971.7 After the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia took

up its place as its successor. Elected members are assigned their position according to a

specific country matrix. There are three countries from Africa, two from Asia, one from

Eastern Europe, two from Latin America and two from the grouping called Western Europe

and others. An elected member is not allowed to apply for re-election immediately after the

conclusion of the previous term.8

After several years of decolonization, the UN Member States recognized that six elected

members are no longer sufficient. Therefore, in 1965, their number was increased to ten

(E10).9 Especially decolonized regions – Africa and Asia – needed a better proportional

representation and gained two added seats each.

Since the end of Cold War, several debates regarding a possible reform of the SC have been

discussed. So far, none of them was successful or even close to it. One of the frequently

stated reasons for this reform is the lowering effectivity of the SC, especially in relation to

the veto powers, that too often prevent any effective action.10 Furthermore, the concept of

the P5 being great world powers is deemed to be obsolete and in a dire need of

reevaluation.

7 The New York Times, 2011. 8 Charter of the United Nations, Article 23. 9 Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations, 2017. 10 Currently, the most prominent example of ineffectivity is civil war in Syria.

6

Topic A: Crisis in Rwanda 1994: too little too late all over again?

Introduction During the first half of the 1990s, Rwanda a small, yet

densely populated country, in the African Great

Lakes region, has repeatedly found itself in a turmoil.

For centuries, its society has been divided into two

major groups – Hutu and Tutsi, who once again

stood at the opposing sides of a battlefield. 11

Ever since it regained its independence in 1962,

Rwanda has been experiencing ethnic tensions

between the majority Hutu (84 % of population) and

the minority Tutsi (15 % of population).12 Their

impact has been twofold. The formerly ruling Tutsi

minority has been marginalized on all levels. Furthermore,

occasional episodes of ethnically motivated violence have

caused a major refugee movement, especially to the

neighboring Uganda, but to Zaire or Burundi as well.

Tutsi migrants constituted the foundations of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) that

entered to Rwanda from Uganda on October 1st 1990, starting thus the civil war that was

characterized by ethnically motivated violence from both sides. 13 14 Estimates of deaths

between 1990-1993 fluctuate around ten thousand of casualties.15

The civil war was supposed to end after ceasefire that was agreed upon at the end of July

1992. Peace talks in Arusha, Tanzania, produced the so-called Arusha Accord, signed on

11 Statistic Times, 2015. 12 CIA World Factbook, 2017. 13 Pruniér, G. The Rwanda Crisis, 1959-1994: History of the Genocide. 1995. P. 93.; Des Forges, A. Leave none to Tell the Story – Genocide in Rwanda. 1999. P. 42. 14 Although the civil war theoretically ended by signing the peace agreement, violence has not been fully halted by either side. 15 Oppong, J. R. Rwanda. 2008. P. 58.

Source:https://www.google.cz/search?q=rwanda+map&rlz=1C1SAVS_enCZ545CZ545&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidusmQ3bfTAhXMWSwKHSbyCY0Q_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=798#imgrc=3pxWimsBWUW7UM:

7

August 4th 1993.16 A United Nations mission UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission

for Rwanda) has been deployed to supervise the armistice and ensure implementation of the

accord.17 The full implementation of the peace agreement, however, turned out to be

problematic and the accord has never been fully implemented.

At the beginning of April 1994, Rwanda is at peak of another escalation. On April 6th 1994,

the airplane with the ruling president Juvénal Habyarimana was shot down while landing in

the country´s capital, Kigali, resulting in the death of the president and other members of

government. President of the neighboring Burundi and several of his government members

are also among the reported casualties. As the perpetrator remains unclear, roadblocks and

checkpoints have started to appear all over Kigali, together with renewed and highly

increased violence against Tutsi.18

In 2017 Rwanda is a stabilized, in comparison to other African countries booming, country.

Although no massive wave of violence has occurred since 1994, the situation is far from

perfect. President Kagame has established a very personalized strong government,

practically a dictatorship. There is a presidential election coming up in August 2017 and

Kagame is anticipated to win once again. The society is also battling large societal

differences. The rich-poor gap might become a source of tensions in the future.

16 Peace Accords Matrix, 2015. 17 Un.org, 2017. 18 BBC On This Day 1950-2005. 2017.

8

Historical Background Rwanda was not always a conflict-prone territory. For centuries, both Hutu and Tutsi

managed to live next to each other peacefully, with only occasional violent clashes. At the

same time, violence was only rarely motivated by their “ethnicity”. It more often had

economic or social background. Furthermore, if somebody was born Hutu, it did not mean

he had to remain Hutu for life. If a Hutu managed to accommodate enough money and

other possessions, he could become a Tutsi. Similarly, if a Tutsi lost his properties, he was

at the risk of becoming a Hutu. Also, both groups share the same language and religion,

what have both been significant contributors to their amiable coexistence. However, the

situation changed dramatically, when colonists and the Christian church started to discover

this area.

Colonization rule in Rwanda (turn of the century – 1962)

The first colonists came to Rwanda from Germany at the turn of the 19th and 20th century.

While ruling the territory until World War I., they used the so-called indirect rule system.

They did not intervene into the traditional ruling system from the times of independent

monarchy, which preceded their arrival. All relations in the society were left untouched and

to their own developments.19

After being defeated in World War I., the Germans were forced to hand the German East

Africa to the victory powers. Rwanda was assigned to the Belgians, who were not known

for a sensitive approach to their colonies. Although the first years did not signal any big

changes in the ruling style, it all shifted dramatically after 1926.20 In order to simplify the

control over the territory, the Belgians decided to strictly and permanently divide the

society into Hutu and Tutsi based on their alleged morphological differences. For this

purpose, they created tables of morphological differences based on which every citizen was

assigned one ethnical group. Their adherence to the group was also made clear on their

national ID cards that have been in place since. Attempting to make their ruling over the

territory easier, the Belgians assigned Tutsi the role of local and governmental leaders. They

did so assuming it would be easier to control a smaller group of people.21

19 Lemarchand, R. Political Clientelism and Ethnicit in Tropical Africa: Competing SOlidarities in Nation-Building. 1972. P. 74-5.; Pruniér, G. 1995. P. 25. 20 Bah, A. M. S. The Making of the Rwandan Genocide and the Future Protection of Civilians in Africa. 2007. P. 259. 21 Tatum, D. C. Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and Darfur. 2010. P. 41.

9

Parallel to the process of arbitrary creation of ethnical groups, the Catholic Church started

to play a more significant role. Initially, the Church also promoted Tutsi as the leaders of

society. This, however changed during the 1950s, when Hutu started to be persuaded they

were being suppressed and their rights taken away. This change of position of the Church

contributed to the creation of the Hutu movement.22 This process escalated in 1957, when

the Hutu manifest was presented. The document only strengthened polarization of the

society and contributed to the break out of the first inter-societal conflict that resulted in

the independence of the country on July 1st 1962.

Independent republic (1962-1990)

During the conflict 1959-1962 Hutu successfully ousted Tutsi out of power (and many of

them out of the country) and became the ruling party. Lacking any governmental

experience, the socio-economic situation in the country worsened rapidly. Parallel to this,

the situation of Tutsi worsened as well. Until 1973 their ostracizing worsened steadily.

In year 1973 staged Juvénal Habyarimana a successful coup d’état and became president.

Although the government remained Hutu, the situation of Tutsi improved. An informal

agreement with the government was followed, according to which, if Tutsi stayed out of

public positions, they were left alone. Following this agreement, Tutsi withdrew into the

private sector.23 Ethnically motivated violence, however, didn´t stop entirely.

Rwandan civil war (1990 – 1993)

October 1st 1990 was Rwanda attacked by members of the RPA/RPF and the civil war

began. Although caught off guard, the government of president Habyarimana swiftly regained

momentum. Progress of the attackers was stalled by death of its leader – Fred Rwigema.

While the RPA/RPF awaited the arrival of his deputy – Paul Kagame – the Rwandan

government supported by France, Belgium and Zaire managed to push the invaders back and

slow their progress down.24 Although the immediate violence has been limited, it has never

fully stopped.

After almost two years of fighting, both parties agreed to a ceasefire and for peace talks to

be held in Arusha, Tanzania. The result was the Arusha Accord (see below). The supervision

22 Bah, A. M. S. 2007. P. 262-3. 23 Dallaire, R. Shake Hands with the Devil. 2003. P. 47.; Bah, A. M. S. 2007. P. 266. 24 Des Forges, A. 1999. P. 42.

10

of implementation of its provisions was assigned to the UNAMIR mission that deployed

October 5th 1993.25

Key Actors, Terms and Concepts There are several aspects to keep in mind at any moment of the negotiations. Below is the

overview of the most important ones.

Ethnical groups – Hutu and Tutsi:

Hutu and Tutsi have been the key adversaries in the ethnical tensions since the Belgians

overtook Rwanda as its colony. Their relationship worsened significantly after the country

gained its independence. In 1994, Hutu constitute around 84 % of the society and hold all

important governmental positions. Tutsi constituted the ruling elite until 1962, when Hutu

seized power after a coup d’état and three years of civil war. In recent years, Tutsi´s

position in the society is very complicated. They are prevented from participating at public

life of their country and are not allowed to obtain higher than elementary education.

Violence against them based on ethnicity is omnipresent. A great amount of Tutsi lives

currently abroad, predominantly in Uganda, but also in Burundi, whose society follows the

same ethnical division as Rwanda´s. 26

Rwandan Patriotic Front:

RPF was created in Uganda in 1987.27 It joins together many people – predominantly Tutsi –

who, left Rwanda since its independence. Over the course of time, it´s military wing –

Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) – was created. This wing stood also behind the attack in

October 1990, when the civil war commenced. It´s current leader is Paul Kagame. Based on

the provisions of the Arusha Accord, there are several hundreds of RPA/RPF members

present in Kigali now. They constitute a part of a joint force supervising the implementation

of the Arusha Agreement. The rest of RPF is still stationed outside of Rwanda,

predominantly in neighboring Uganda.

UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda:

25 Un.org. 2017 26 CIA World Factbook, 2017. 27 Reed, Wm. C. Exile, Reform, and the Rise of the Rwandan Patriotic Front. 1996. P. 485.

11

Preceded by the observatory UNOMUR mission since summer 1993, UNAMIR was

deployed to Rwanda to supervise the agreed ceasefire and Arusha Accord in October 1993.

It consists of around 2500 units from various countries. It is headed by brig. Gen. Roméo

Dallaire from Canada.28 It´s mandate is strictly limited to monitoring functions and tasks

connected with provision of humanitarian aid. If violence were to fully erupt, they are not

allowed to participate actively, not even in protection of civilians.29

Arusha Accord:

The peace agreement was discussed for almost a year and signed on August 4th 1993.30 The

very extensive document contains provisions regarding the ceasefire as well as future

development of the country. Based on the Accord, a multi-ethnical Government of National

Unity was to be established. Fifteen places were to be assigned to Hutu and six to Tutsi.31

Until now, no such government has been established. Until 1994, the Arusha Accord has

been the most important attempt of the international community to solve the situation in

Rwanda. As of April 1994, its statute is being regularly questioned. Some of its provisions

are being implemented (joint Hutu and Tutsi supervising force, deployment of the UNAMIR

mission), the rest is unlikely to follow, as a new wave of violence is erupting. There is also

no sign the government and leadership in the presidential palace are willing to agree to a

multi-ethnic government, which represents one of the cornerstones of the Accord.

Recent developments and current challenges Despite the signature of the Arusha Accord and deployment of the UNAMIR mission,

current situation in Rwanda is highly tensioned at best. Ethnically motivated violence has not

ceased completely, there are reports of massive propaganda aimed against all Tutsi. In

compliance with the Arusha Accord, there are several hundred RPF members currently in

Rwanda, taking part in stabilization of the situation. Chances are high that this is looked very

unfavorably at by many radicalized Hutu.

As already reported in the introduction, plane with Rwandan president Habyarimana was

shot down in Kigali on April 6th. Overall twelve members of Rwandan and Burundian

28 Dallaire, R. 2003. P. 8-27. 29 Un.org. 2017. 30 Peace Accords Matrix. 2015. 31 Pruniér, G. 2009.

12

governments have lost their lives. Sources from the UNAMIR mission and journalists

residing in Rwanda have been reporting a rapid worsening of situation in the country.32

Roadblocks and checkpoints controlled by Hutu and their paramilitary forces are said to

have sprung up all over the capital aiming at killing Tutsi and those, who would attempt to

help them. Furthermore, anti-Tutsi rhetoric is growing on strength and severity. Pro-

government radio Milles Collines is by far the most active tool of propaganda. Within hours

after the plane crash of April 6th, it has started to blame the RPF and Tutsi in general. Also,

they no longer describe Tutsi as human beings, deviating instead to words such as “rats” or

“cockroaches”.33

Increased frequency of ethnically motivated violence is reported from all over the country.

Not only Tutsi are being the targets. Anybody who would attempt to protect any Tutsi or

would disagree with the killings would immediately become a possible target as well.

Members of the UNAMIR mission are in a similar danger, with some of its units already

being killed protecting the Prime Minister.34 Many European countries, including Belgium or

France, have already started to organize withdrawals of their citizens not only from the

mission, but also journalists or expats. As of 1994, the Catholic Church is still on the side of

the governing majority, therefore possibly complicit in the killings. Churches are not

considered to be good hiding places.

Since the beginning of 1994, Rwanda has a seat in the Security Council, being represented by

Jean Damascene Bizimana, an ambassador close to the Kigali government.35 Having a primary

source of information right at its hands, the SC is provided with an excellent opportunity to

act swiftly and decide sooner than an irreversible tragedy occurs.

At the same time, however, the SC has been struggling with action in the past months. Being

stigmatized by the so called “Black Hawk Down” situation in Somalia in October 1993 and

paralyzed because of disagreements concerning other conflicts such as war in the Balkans.36

Western countries led by the USA are very reluctant to continue risking lives of their

soldiers at battlefields, where only very few of their interests are at stake. On the other

32 BBC On This Day 1950-2005. 2017. 33 The New Times, 2008. 34 Dallaire, R. 2003. 28 The Washington Post, 2010. 36 Worldatlas, 2017.

13

hand, if one country were to actively lobby for involvement, an action on the part of the SC

would not be unlikely.37

The complicated dynamics in the region is a negative contributor to the situation as well.

Uganda, a long-term host of the RPF, looks highly unfavorable on the current government in

Kigali. Zaire, on the other hand, is more likely to stand by it or allow Hutus seek a sanctuary

there in case of necessity. If the current situation in Rwanda were to turn very badly, there

would also be a high risk of spill-over to neighboring Burundi whose society is just as

divided and its president has fallen victim to the plane crash of April 6th 1994.

Overview of important facts • Ethnic tensions started to increase after plane crash of April 6th; massive anti-Tutsi

propaganda is igniting the society against them.

• Roadblocks are appearing all over the country; halted Tutsi are either killed or

arrested.

• Several hundred RPF soldiers are already in Rwanda and are likely to take part in any

violence that were to escalate; they are also anticipated to try and protect

endangered Tutsi.

• Ten UNAMIR soldiers have already been killed on April 7th prompting Western

countries to withdraw their citizens from Rwanda.

• Both the President and the Prime Minister are dead, which leaves the country in a

very complicated political situation.

Questions a resolution should answer There are many pressing issues the Security Council must consider and decide upon. The

quintessential questions are the following:

• What is going on in Rwanda?

37 The reason the SC did not act in Rwanda is closely connected with no country taking up the role of a leader. Western countries were reluctant, trying to shy away the word genocide; countries such as Russia or China are not the biggest supporters of interventions in general and the remaining countries failed to persuade the bigger ones, especially the P5.

14

• How is it to be classified?

• Is the Security Council going to react regarding the plane crash? If yes, how?

After answering these, there are following issues to be decided:

• What can the Security Council do to address the matter at hand?

• What measures are the most suitable ones in this situation?

• What is the future of UNAMIR if the situation deteriorates and a full-scale

violence/civil war breaks out?

• Are there partners in the country/region that could be cooperated with?

Recommended Reading We are aware of how hard it is to limit yourselves to a certain past date and to “try to

forget the reality that truly happened.” When preparing for this topic try to pay a very close

attention to what happened until April 6th or 7th 1994. Everything else will be a matter of

developments during BerlinMUN 2017. You find many useful sources for your preparation

already listed in the used bibliography (see below). They are easily accessible through

Google Scholar, Google Books, or scientific databases used by universities. Besides those,

there are nowadays plentiful books, articles and analyses regarding Rwanda before and

during the genocide. Furthermore, when researching, try to use the history of your assigned

country as a possible source of information about how it would have acted in this case (is

there any mass slaughter in the past, has the country been accused of committing mass

violent crimes, etc.).

From other sources, the following are strongly recommended.

• United Nations. 1951. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-

1021-english.pdf

• Security Council outcomes from respective years including summaries of discussions

and statements by national representatives to the SC. E.g.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1993/scres93.htm

15

• Arusha Accord. http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/services/cds/agreements/pdf/rwan1.pdf

• Jones, A. (2006). Genocide. A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. Pp. 232-257. (In

case of necessity, the book can be provided by the chairwomen.)

• Tatum, D. C. (2010). Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Rwanda, Bosnia,

Kosovo and Darfur. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Reports of discussions in the SC during April 2014:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB472/

Bibliography Bah, A. M. S. (2007). The Making of the Rwandan Genocide and the Future Protection of Civilians

in Africa. P. 253 – 285 in John Laband (ed.). Daily Lives of Civilians in Wartime Africa: From

Slavery to the Diamond Wars. Westport: Greenwood Press.

BBC On This Day 1950-2005. (2017). 1994: Rwanda president´s plane “shot down”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/6/newsid_2472000/2472195.stm

CIA World Factbook. (2017, April 23). Rwanda. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-

world-factbook/geos/rw.html

Dallaire, R. (2003). Shake Hands with the Devil. Arrow books.

Des Forges, A. (1999). Leave none to Tell the Story – Genocide in Rwanda. Human Rights

Watch.

Lemarchand, René. (1972). Political Clientelism and Ethnicity in Tropical Africa: Competing

Solidarities in Nation-Building. The American Political Science Review. 66(1), 68-90.

Oppong, J. R. (2008.) Rwanda. New York: Chelsea House Publishers.

Peace Accords Matrix. (2015). Arusha Accord – 4 August 1993.

https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/accord/arusha-accord-4-august-1993

Pruniér, G. (1995). The Rwanda Crisis, 1959-1994: History of a Genocide. C. Hurst & Co.

Publishers.

16

Pruniér, G. (2009). Africa´s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a

Continental Catastrophe. Oxford University Press.

Reed, Wm. C. (1996). Exile, Reform, and the Rise of the Rwandan Patriotic Front. The

Journal of Modern African Studies. 34(3), 479-501.

Rwembeho, Stephen. (2008). Unearthing the genesis of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The

New Times. http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/article/2008-04-03/3221/

Statistic Times. (2015). List of Countries by Population Density.

http://statisticstimes.com/population/countries-by-population-density.php

Tatum, D. C. (2010). Genocide at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo

and Darfur. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Un.org. (2017, Apirl 23). Rwanda – UNAMIR Mandate.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unamirM.htm

Worldatlas. (2017). Battle of Mogadishu (1993 Operation Gothic Serpent).

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/battle-of-mogadishu-1993-operation-gothic-serpent.html

17

TOPIC B: The Cyprus dispute: Divided we stand, united we fall?

1.TheislandofCyprusafterthedivisionof1974.38

Introduction Cyprus, nowadays officially called the Republic of Cyprus, is an island country found in the

Eastern Mediterranean, sharing sea borders with Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and

Egypt. Its recorded history begins around 9000 B.C.39, and since then, Cyprus’ natural

wealth and strategic location have drawn the attention of many states: Around 1200 B.C.

Greek culture and civilization were brought to the island40, thereafter Ottoman control was

implemented from 1571 until 1878 and, finally, a bi-communal coexistence marked most of

the period of British rule until 1963.

The Cyprus dispute belongs to the most controversially discussed issues in post-war

Western history, primarily because of its complexity and its long-term consequences that

directly influence the island’s politics until today, since the conflict is yet to be resolved. This

contemporaneity of the issue is also what makes it hard to discuss on a scientific and non-

partial level: Most reports on the topic are heavily influenced by one of both sides, either on

a personal or a political level. This is something the delegates should take heavily into

38 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_dispute. 39 Walton, Marsha "Ancient burial looks like human and pet cat", CNN, 2004. 40 Christou, Demos, 1986. Kourion: A Complete Guide to Its Monuments and Local Museum.

18

2.TheethnographicdistributionofminoritiesinCyprusin1960[Red:TurkishCypriots;Blue:GreekCypriots;GreenandOrange:Maronites]

consideration when conducting research and sincerely put effort into investigating both

perspectives on the matter.

Key actors, concepts and terminology In order to conceptualize the events before and around 1974, it is necessary to be aware of

the different and often opposing interests and decision-makers at the time, as well as several

terms that will be of great use during the debate.

Guarantor powers

According to the Treaty of Guarantee (1960), which was signed between the Republic of

Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom, the latter three were required and given

the power to “consult together” in order to ensure “the maintenance of [the island’s]

independence, territorial integrity and security”. In cases where such action was proven

impossible, “each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserve[d] the right to take action with

the sole aim of re-establishing” peaceful

conditions.41

EOKA42

The EOKA was a revolutionist group

that was primarily active between 1955

and 1959, waging the struggle against

British colonialism and calling for

autonomy under the slogan of Enosis

(gr: ������, reunification) with the motherland.

Hellenic Republic - Greek Junta

Between 1967 and 1974 Greece was governed by a nationalistic military regime, commonly

known as the Regime of the Colonels.43 The dictatorship, whose popularity had been

descending during the months leading up to the 15th of July 1974, saw the possible

reunification with Cyprus as an opportunity to regain followers. This aspiration, however,

41 United Nations – Treaty Series: Treaty of Guarantee (1960). 42 Hatzivasileiou, Evanthis, “The period of the independence war, 1955-1959. EOKA”, 2000. 43 Matt Barrett, The Rise of the Junta in Greece.

19

was short-lived, since the failure of the following days led to the final fall of the Junta in

Greece.44

Turkey

Until the 1960’s Turkey had developed quickly and had established a close relationship both

with the European economies, as well as the United States: After participating in the

Marshall Plan (1948), becoming a member of the Council of Europe in 1949 and joining

NATO in 1952, Turkey also came to be an associate member of the EEC in 1963. At this

time, the country was tumultuously transitioning to a multiparty democracy, this

development was, however, interrupted by a coup d’état, both in 1960 and in 1971.45

United States of America

During the first years after the establishment of an independent state, the US maintained a

neutral stance towards Cyprus, primarily due to its diplomatic relations both with Turkey

and with Greece. The only instance of American involvement in the Cyprus dispute within

that time period took place in 1964, when the US made effort to initiate dialogue between

the parties and, thereby, diminish the possibility of a Turkish intervention. During the events

leading up to July 1974, it has often been said that the U.S. administration was aware of the

upcoming Greek coup against the Cypriot government, yet decided not to intervene.46

Soviet Union

Throughout his political career and especially during the 1960’s, amidst the Cold War,

Makarios47 seeked support from the Soviet Union and the Non-aligned Movement, so as to

be able to defuse any actions threatening the independence and territorial integrity of

Cyprus regardless of the political decisions of the West. This interdependence was in the

Soviets’ interests, because it ensured that Cyprus was not in the direct sphere of influence

of the United States and also averted a possible Turkish intervention.48 In the beginning of

44 "Greeks Spurn Monarchy," Deseret News 9 December 1974. 45 Hale, William Mathew (1994). Turkish Politics and the Military. 46 Copley, Gregory R. “Turkish Strategic Imperatives and Western Policy Failures Led to the Collapse of the Cyprus Resolution Talks.”, 2004. 47i.e. Makarios III, the democratically elected President of Cyprus between 1960 and 1977. 48 Turkey at the time maintained close relations with the U.S., both due to the 1948 Marshall Plan and its NATO membership.

20

the 1970s, however, the Soviet Union maintained a more noncommittal position, so as to

not threat its détente49 during the final phase of the Cold War.

Coup d'état

A coup d'état can be defined as a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially:

the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group. 50

Cold War

The Cold War describes the relationship that developed primarily between the USA and

the USSR after WWII, and influenced international relations throughout the globe for over

20 years. A clash of very different beliefs and ideology – capitalism versus communism –

each held with almost religious conviction, formed the basis of an international power

struggle with both sides vying for dominance, exploiting every opportunity for expansion

anywhere in the world. The dispute never escalated into an armed conflict, however both

sides intimidated each other by expressing threats of nuclear warfare and supporting

opposing powers in major regional wars, known as proxy wars, such as the Arab-Israeli

conflict.51 Although there is not specific year that the conflict ended, and some may argue

that it is still on-going, it is widely accepted that the Cold War came to rest in the early

1970s. 52

Historical Background Independence declaration of 1960

After World War II, Turkey gave up its right of the island of Cyprus to the British.

Afterwards and until its independence in the 60’s, national level politics were virtually absent

from Cyprus, and the power was primarily concentrated in the hands of the British colonial

administration.53 Eventually, after years of conflict between the colonists and EOKA, the

United Kingdom agreed to sign the London and Zürich Agreements, according to which

Cyprus was proclaimed an independent state. The document called for the formation of a

49 Definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: the easing of strained relations, especially in political situations. 50 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 51 Gaddis, John Lewis (2005). The Cold War: A New History. 52 Hopkins, Michael F. "Continuing Debate and New Approaches in Cold War History,". 53 Coufoudakis, Van “A Contemporary Problem in Historical Perspective”, 2006.

21

national constitution and established Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom as Guarantor

Powers.54

Intercommunal disputes (1963)

The government system, as set out in the 1960 constitution, was quickly proven to be

dysfunctional for Cyprus: Unlike other modern systems, it wasn’t based upon the principle

of popular sovereignty. Instead, its core constituted of a dualistic principle, that being the

cooperation between two communities divided along strict ethnic lines and a veto-power of

both parties. This led to political and civil clashes in December of 1963 and the

authorization of UN peacekeeping forces (UNFICYP) as of 1964.55

The events leading up to 1974

The period from December 1963 to July 1974 was marked by intermittent communal

violence and threats of a Turkish military intervention. Although after 1964 talks for

revisions of the constitution were held between the Greek and the Turkish community

under UN auspices, multiple reasons counteracted any appeasement efforts: The differences

in religion and mentality, the limited democratic rights of the Turkish minority, as well as its

inclining economic dependence on Turkey were only some of those. At the same time, the

establishment of Rauf Denktash, a Turkish nationalist, in the political arena concurrently

with the rise of the Junta in Greece, only aggravated the already existing hostility:56 In an

effort to protect its interests in the region, Turkey consolidated its influence and control

over Turkish Cypriot political life, by implanting settlers from its mainland so as to

strengthen the numerically weak Turkish Cypriot minority, and maintaining the presence of

more than 40000 heavily armed Turkish occupation troops in Cyprus.57

Greek Junta, Enosis and the coup d'état of 1974

After independence from the British, Enosis was no longer on the agenda of the majority of

EOKA. However, in 1970 a section of the organization (EOKA-B) was established on the

54 London-Zürich Treaties of February 1959, Articles 1 to 5. 55 Carkoglu Ali, Turkey and the European Union: Domestic Politics, Economic Integration and International Dynamics. 56 Engin, Emine; Girneli, Yildirim „Cyprus Question“. 57 Coufoudakis, Van “A Contemporary Problem in Historical Perspective”, 2006.

22

basis of once again pushing for reunification under the support of the fascist Greek regime

Junta, with the primary aim of supporting the interests of Greek Cypriot upper-class

Since its rise to power in 1967, the Greek nationalist regime had been following an

imperialistic behavior in order to achieve the island’s Enosis with “the motherland”.

Following Makarios’ unwillingness to obey to such demands and after several attempts to

destabilize the government, the regime takes stricter measures: On the 15th of July 1974,

the junta, in cooperation with EOKA-B and Greek Cypriot extremist elements, carried out

a coup against the democratically elected government of Cyprus.

Recent developments and current challenges We now find ourselves at the 19th of July 1974. What is going to happen (a possible Turkish

counter-attack, an English intervention, a Peacekeeping mission of the UN and even more)

solely depends on the Committee’s decisions and the escalation of events.

The political situation in Cyprus

Makarios, the democratically elected President at the time, barely managed to escape an

attack against his life and fled to Paphos in order to, with help from the British, fly to New

York to attend the UNSC meeting on July 19th58, where he just informed the United

Nations about the recent events.59 The new regime in place is considered to be an

extremist puppet regime strongly under the influence of the Greek government and initiates

a crackdown of supporters of the previous government and many reporters.60

A possible Turkish attack

In response to the events, Rauf Denktas, head of the Turkish Cypriot minority and with the

support of Turkey, calls for an intervention to be conducted by UNFICYP61 or the United

Kingdom so as to protect the lives of the Turkish population. At the same time, Turkey

issues a list of demands regarding the escalating conflict, including the designation of the

current Cypriot government, the legal admission of Turkish soldiers with the aim of

protecting the Turkish minority and a reconsideration of the terms concerning the legal

58 Jüngling, Emili (June 2005). Perception of the facts about the coup in Cyprus (15th of July 1974) in the Cyprus daily press. 59 Highly recommended as a further reading: Makarios‘ address to the United Nations. 60 Coakley, John (2013). Pathways from Ethnic Conflict: Institutional Redesign in Divided Societies.

23

rights of the minority as set out in the national constitution.62 Even though the attitude of

Turkey’s representative appears to be decisive and the terms seem non-negotiable, England

dismisses the proposal.63

Main challenges

Amidst a national crisis, in a state deeply divided by ethnic interests and religious influence,

the outcome of the events is also directly affected by foreign interests. The most

problematic aspects include the division between the minorities in Cyprus, which results in

political and economic problems, since it is vital for any country to have a functioning

political system that represents at least the majority of its population. At the same time, the

strong Turkish and Greek influence in the region and the consequences thereof, including

the Junta intervention and the Turkish counter-threats, pose a further barrier to the gradual

stabilization of Cyprus. Finally, the complex role and ambiguous position of other parties,

e.g. England, the United States, the United Nations and the Soviet Union make the outcome

of the situation at hand unforeseeable.

Overview of important facts • In 1960 Cyprus gained its independence from Britain and Greece, Turkey and the

former colonists were assigned as Guarantor powers, responsible for maintaining

order and security in the country.

• Due to political influence from both sides of the Mediterranean coast, as well as

religious and political differences, intercommunal disputes between the Turkish and

the Greek minorities escalated to civil clashes.

• In 1974 the junta, in cooperation with EOKA-B and Greek Cypriot extremist

elements, carries out a coup against the democratically elected government of

Cyprus.

• Makarios has left the country, which is now under the power of Junta’s “puppet

government”, and the Turkish government asks for a strong international response

that will ensure the security of Turkish Cypriots.

61 Doyle, Michael W.; Sambanis, Nicholas (2011). Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. 62 "Türk Birli�i Alarma Geçti" (in Turkish). 63 Förster, Larissa (2013). Influence Without Boots on the Ground: Seaborne Crisis Response.

24

Questions a resolution should answer • How should the United Nations interact with the Cypriot government currently in

place?

• Should a further escalation of the conflict be averted?

• If so, to what extent should the United Nations intervene?

• Should third-party states (Guarantors or not) intervene?

• How should the demands of the Turkish representative be addressed?

• What should be the stance of the United Nations towards the Greek regime that

allegedly motivated the coup?

• How can the safety of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots be ensured?

• Are there any further military or legislative steps to be taken, so that similar

situations can be prevented?

• What should be the role of UNFICYP from now on?

Recommended readings As pointed out above, we are aware of the size of information you are already required to

obtain through this Study Guide, as well as your personal research. However, it is highly

recommended that you take a look at the listed sources, as well as the Bibliography, since

this information is directly linked to the different aspects of the topic that will be discussed

in the Committee.

• Cyprus: Why One of the World’s Most Intractable Conflicts Continues,

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/world/europe/cyprus-reunification-talks.html

• Cyprus country profile, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17217956

• CYPRUS: THE UNRESOLVED CONFLICT ,by George Stergiou Kaloudis, Ph.D.

https://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~durduran/dergi/kalou1.htm

25

• The Cyprus Dispute, CIA Files

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000273005.pdf

• Cyprus – The human cost of the tragedy, http://cyprusscene.com/2013/11/13/cyprus-

the-human-cost-of-the-tragedy/

• The London and Zürich Agreements,

http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/p_zurich.html

• Speech by Makarios Delivered before the UN Security Council on 19 July 1974,

http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/makarios-speech.html#speech

26

Bibliography Barrett, Matt (2012), The Rise of the Junta in Greece,

https://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/junta.htm

Carkoglu Ali (2003), Turkey and the European Union: Domestic Politics, Economic

Integration and International Dynamics; Taylor & Francis

Christou, Demos (1986) Kourion: A Complete Guide to Its Monuments and Local Museum;

Filokipros

Coakley, John (2010), Pathways from Ethnic Conflict: Institutional Redesign in Divided Societies,

Abingdon: Routledge, pp.1-19

Copley, Gregory R. (2004), Turkish Strategic Imperatives and Western Policy Failures Led to the

Collapse of the Cyprus Resolution Talks; Defence & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy

Coufoudakis, Van (2006), A Contemporary Problem in Historical Perspective; Minnesota

Mediterranean And East European Monographs

Deseret News (1974), Greeks Spurn Monarchy

Doyle, Michael W.; Sambanis, Nicholas (2011), Making War and Building Peace: United Nations

Peace Operations; Princeton University Press

Engin, Emine; Girneli, Yildirim (1980), The Cyprus Question; İşçinin sesi publications

Förster, Larissa (2013), Influence Without Boots on the Ground: Seaborne Crisis Response;

Defense Dept., Navy, Naval War College

Gaddis, John Lewis (2005), The Cold War: A New History; Holt Paperbacks

Hopkins, Michael F. (2007),Continuing Debate and New Approaches in Cold War History;

Historical Journal, Vol. 50 Issue 4, pp 913–934

Hale, William Mathew (1994), Turkish Politics and the Military; Psychology Press

Hatzivasileiou, Evanthis (2004), Strategies of the Cyprus Struggle: The 1950s; Patakis

Jüngling, Emili (June 2005); Perception of the facts about the coup in Cyprus (15th of July 1974);

Cyprus Daily Press

London-Zürich Treaties of February 1959, Articles 1 to 5;

http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/p_zurich.html

27

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Definitions of détente and coup d’état;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

United Nations – Treaty Series (1960), Treaty of Guarantee;

http://peacemaker.un.org/cyprus-greece-turkey-guarantee60

Walton, Marsha (2004) Ancient burial looks like human and pet cat, CNN