Care amiche e cari amici di MSOI Milano, buon anno!! Per riprendere studio ed impegni con il giusto international mood, vi consigliamo di leggere l’articolo che Laura – una delle partecipanti al Simulation Game storico sulla crisi di Suez tenutosi lo scorso novembre – ha redatto, rivestendo i panni di una giornalista invitata ad assistere al dibattito svoltosi in seno al Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite. Di cosa il mondo è stato informato?
Buona lettura e a presto!
UN talks fail
Decision on Suez passed on to General Assembly
The Security Council opened this morning in a very orderly way, the parties involved presented their statements in a composed and well rounded manner.
Great Britain and France emphasized their historical ties to the area, and together they stand by Israel’s side. The two powers called for a prompt and firm resolution in order to bring order back to the region. Great Britain also stressed the need for an immediate reopening of the canal.
The US were careful in treading on the Russian issue, but such treatment was not extended to the the ex-colonial powers. According to the US representative, the colonial mindset is a hinder to a correct analysis of the situation; furthermore, a shortsighted view would leave Egypt weakened and more likely to be influenced. China stood on similar grounds with a sharp and incisive rhetoric.
The USSR on the other hand condemned the armed aggression carried out by Israel, and asserted that the nationalization of the canal is a legitimate act. Russian emissaries called for a prompt decision on Israel’s behalf to disengage.
Belgium’s position was focused on the uses of diplomacy, greately criticising the armed aggression. Nasser’s lack of integrity in not keeping faith to his promise of granting access to the canal is deplorable, as the representative of Belgium stated, and firmer diplomatic actions, possibly with the achievement of a decisive resolution, are strongly advised.
Cuba took the chance to reinforce its stand against ex-colonial powers excercising their imperialism on a sovereign state. Iran was also very harsh in criticizing Britain’s position.
During the debate the pace quickly picked up as the calm atmosphere gave way to a frantic exchange of mutual accusations.
France justified its hunger for a share in the canal by remarking, and repeatedly stressing the fact, that Nasser is financing rebel factions in Algeria. The French delegation proposed a three way division of the income generated by the canal among France, England and Egypt.
Great Britain seemed to maintain a balanced position whereas France voiced harsh criticism at Egypt’s dependence on French and English capitals and investments.
Australia seemed to be standing by Great Bitain’s side on account of their historic ties, however, as the tension grew, its representative aggressively criticised the use of force. The focus then turned on the funds for the construction of the Aswan Dam, with sharp remarks aimed at the US representative.
The American delegation has stated that the US will do everything in its power to bring stability to the area. According to the US delegate it is also quite tragic to observe how quickly the European states were in forgetting the role played by the US during WWII.
During the second part of the debate, the representatives of Egypt and Israel were called as observing parties. The US representative granted his debating time to the Egyptian delegate who called for the revenue of the canal to go exclusively to Egypt.
Setting individual disputes aside, the discussion then verted on a possible cease-fire. Also, all representatives seemed to agree on economic sanctions.
Many resolution proposals were suggested, among them the establishment of an international taskforce to oversee the cease-fire, and the stationing of international troops in the Sinai area and along the Gaza strip.
An agreement could not be reached however, and it was voted to pass on the debate to the General Assembly; the motion passed with seven favourable votes.