Country: Belgium
Committee: HSC
Topic: Suez Crisis (October 29, 1956)
Introduction
An argument can be made that a conflict over the Suez Canal was destined to happen
since its inception in 1869 for one simple reason: Egypt did not have total control over the canal.
Although the canal was originally financed by France and Egypt, Egypt maintained and operated
the canal until 1875. By 1882, the British had taken full control of the canal.
During both world wars, the Suez Canal was a sought-after locale. The nation controlling
the canal had access to trade between Europe and the Middle East and Asia. On November 18,
1914, Britain declared Egypt a protectorate and deployed Indian and British forces to protect the
canal. By declaring Egypt as a protectorate, Britain ensured that Egypt would not join Central
Powers. In February 1915, during World War One, Turkey, a German ally, sent troops to capture
the canal. However, the British remained strong and defended the canal.
Although Britain gave Egypt independence in name only in 1922, Egypt’s true
independence did not exist until the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936. The treaty gave Egypt its
independence but also allowed Britain to house troops at the Suez Canal to safeguard British
strategic and financial interests in the region until 1956.
During World War II, the Suez Canal was again fought over. Italy, a member of the Axis
Powers, invaded Egypt by way of Libya in September 1940. In December 1940, Britain’s
counterattack drove Italy out of Egypt. In March 1941, the Allies were driven back by the
Italians and German Afrika Korps. In the summer of 1942, the Axis Powers seemed en route to
capturing the Canal. Surprisingly, the Allies still had control of the Canal in October 1942. On
May 13, 1943, the Axis Powers surrendered.
Most historians believe the roots of the Suez Crisis began at the conclusion of World War
II. Nationalism in Egypt reached new heights. In October 1951, Nahas Pasha, the leader of the
Wafd Party, nullified the Anglo Egyptian Treaty of 1936. Britain responded to attacks on their
garrison by authorizing an operation to “disarm the Egyptian paramilitary force in Ismailia which
was orchestrating the violence” (Milner). King Farouk dismissed Pasha as Prime Minister in
January 1952 after Britain threatened to occupy Cairo. In July 1952, General Mohammed Neguib
took power after a military coup. When Colonel Gamel Abdul Nasser succeeded Neguib in 1954,
“he had three goals: to make Egypt independent by ending British occupation; to build up
Egyptian forces for a successful attack on Israel; to improve Egypt’s economy by constructing a
high dam at Aswan to irrigate the Nile valley” (Milner). In October 1954, Anthony Nutting,
Britain’s minister of state for foreign affairs, and Nasser signed a treaty saying that Britain would
“be withdrawn from Egypt by June 1956, and the British bases were to be run jointly by British
and Egyptian civilian technicians. Egypt agreed to respect the freedom of navigation through the
canal, and it was agreed that British troops would be permitted to return if the Suez Canal was
threatened by an outside power” (Milner). Britain held up their part of the deal and began
withdrawing their troops; while Britain withdrew their troops, Nasser bought Soviet-made
weaponry in an attempt to complete his goal of destroying Israel.
Nasser was on his way to completing two of his three goals he set when he came to
power. Although Nasser was working with the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States
pledged funds for the construction of the Aswan Dam in January 1956. However, on July 19,
1956, the United States retracted funding for the dam; soon after, both the World Bank and
Britain followed the United States’ lead. A week later, Nasser responded by nationalizing the
Anglo-French Suez Canal Company to compensate for the loss of funding. Additionally, Nasser
also blocked Israeli shipping through the Canal, the Straits of Tiran, and the Gulf of Aqaba.
Britain, Israel, and France saw a need to intervene in Egyptian affairs. Without informing
the United States, Britain, France, and Israel conspired to attack Egypt. The plan, known as
Operation Kadesh, was for Israel to invade the Sinai Peninsula and march toward the Suez
Canal. At this point, Britain and France would warn Israel and Egypt to avoid the Canal. Israel
launched the attack on October 29, 1956. The results are not yet known.
Country Policy
We, the Kingdom of Belgium, signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949.
Although NATO is not involved in the Suez Crisis, we are a member of NATO and feel that
Nasser is crippling not only the English and French economies but also the international
economy. Nasser must at the very least reopen the Canal. Ideally, Nasser should be replaced by
someone with a pro-Western policy to not only ensure European prosperity but also international
prosperity.
Solutions
Middle Eastern nations applauded Nasser’s actions. Arab nations felt that Western
influence had been present for too long and wanted to establish their own identity. Part of the
anti-Western sentiment was caused by the support of Western nations for the creation of Israel.
The anti-Western sentiment is understandable given our constant presence in Middle Eastern
affairs; it was only a matter of time until these colonies wanted to establish their own identities.
Nations should view Arab states with caution. They will certainly be looking to cause problems
for Western nations and can be very persuasive given their large oil deposits. Appeasement is not
the proper action; instead, compromise among nations is imperative. Nasser’s decision to block
international trade through the Canal has not just affected Britain and France but also
internationally.
Several steps must be taken to ensure the Suez Crisis does not escalate into a world war.
Peacekeepers must be stationed in three critical locations: at the Suez Canal, Cairo, and Port
Said. There is a strong possibility that a conflict will ensue near Port Said because it leads to
deep penetration into Egypt. Capturing Cairo is the objective of France, Britain, and Israel. Its
capture demonstrates symbolic representation of superiority. Finally, stationing peacekeepers at
the Suez Canal would prevent Israel from advancing past the Canal.
We propose allowing Egypt to maintain control of the Canal on several conditions: Egypt
must continue to pay shareholders in the Canal; they must ensure there are not any arbitrary
Canal closures; finally, Egypt and any other Arab nation must not attack Israel. As long as those
conditions are met, Egypt may control the Suez Canal.
Additionally, the Suez Crisis provides the Soviet Union with a unique opportunity. Upon
succeeding Stalin, Khrushchev called for peaceful coexistence with the West. The situation in
Suez is an opportunity for him to demonstrate how peacefully the West and the Soviet Union
will coexist. The key to ensuring that Soviets do not interfere is to provide incentives to them,
specifically regarding arms trade. Provided that the Soviet Union stops supplying nations with
arms, Western nations will do the same.
Works Cited
"An Affair to Remember." The Economist. The Economist, 27 July 2006. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.
Calhoun, Ricky-Dale. "The Art of Strategic Counterintelligence." Cia.gov. Central Intelligence
Agency, 26 June 2008. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
"Egypt: A Constitution." Time.com. Time Magazine, 28 Apr. 1928. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
"The First Mission- Suez Crisis, 1956." Unac.org. United Nations Association in Canada, 2007.
Web. 14 Jan. 2013.
"LESTER PEARSON & THE SUEZ CRISIS." LESTER PEARSON & THE SUEZ CRISIS. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
"A Look Back … U-2 Monitors Suez Crisis." Cia.gov. Central Intelligence Agency, 12 Nov.
2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2013.
"Milestones- Suez Crisis, 1956." History.state.gov. Office of the Historian, n.d. Web. 28 Jan.
2013.
Milner, Laurie. "The Suez Crisis." BBC News. BBC, 3 Mar. 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
"Suez Canal Crisis." Cbc.ca. N.p., 2001. Web. 31 Jan. 2013.
"The Suez Fiasco 1956." Socialism Today - The Suez Fiasco 1956. N.p., Oct. 2006. Web.
31 Jan. 2013.
Committee: Historical Security Council
Topic: The Situation in Hungary (1956)
Country: Belgium
1. Introduction
On October 9, 1944, Joseph Stalin hosted a war summit in his apartment and invited
Winston Churchill. The two men discussed dividing up territory in the Balkans between
the Soviet Union and Great Britain. After Churchill proposed a ‘percentage deal’ in which he
tried to evenly distribute the land between both nations. Hungary was to be split 50/50,
90% of Romania would belong to Russia, and 90% of Greece would go to Great Britain.
Stalin rejected this offer and the next day his troops crossed through Ukraine into eastern
Hungary. After World War II in May 1945, Russian troops still remained in Hungary and
Stalin still hoped to further expand upon his existing communism empire. The Hungarians
were a patriotic people and hated Russian control, especially the secret police, also known
as the AVH; Russian control over their economy, making Hungary poor; Russian control of
school curriculum; censorship and overall lack of freedom. 1 But in 1949, Hungarian anger
was fueled when they were pushed to sign a mutual assistance treaty with the Soviet
Union, which would give the Soviets the right to a continued military presence. 2 Over time,
Hungary went from a “freely elected Independent Small Holders Party” to a Soviet-backed
Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party led by Matyas Rakosi.
Rakosi began the transition of Hungary into a communist country by setting up an
authoritarian regime. He was successful with this transition because he purged the country
of all any and every obstacle that would politically challenge him. The victims of these
purges were also known as Titoists. With so much focus on the politics in the country, he
1
2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir2/hungaryrev2.shtml
http://www.budapest-life.com/budapest/1956-hungarian-uprising
neglected the economy, which led to declines in the quality of life for all Hungarians.
Fortunately for the Hungarians, Stalin’s death on March 5, 1953 ended the strict Soviet
rule.3 In June, Rakosi and other communist leaders went to Moscow where Soviet leaders
for the poor economy in Hungary criticized them. The Soviet communist party president,
Lavrenti Beria, condemned Rakosi for putting Jews into Hungary’s top party positions and
Rakosi was accused of trying to become the “Jewish King of Hungary”. As a result, Soviet
leaders appointed Imre Nagy as Prime Minister of Hungary and Rakosi was able to keep his
position as party chief. 4
Imre Nagy disagreed with the ideas of Rakosi and worked to change things for the
better. The idea of collectivization was no longer harshly stressed and the manufacturing of
consumer goods was encouraged. He also freed anti-Communists from jails and lifted state
control over the media. 5 Rakosi was not satisfied with Nagy’s actions and campaigned
against him in order to remove Nagy from his position. He argued that it would be more
beneficial for Hungarians to return to communism under Russian leadership.
In March 1956, Nikita Khrushchev gave a secret speech criticizing Stalin at the 20th
Party Congress. 6 This speech initiated a campaign of destalinization throughout the Soviet
bloc. Destalinization led to a policy of a decrease in strained relations between countries
and peaceful coexistence among Western and satellite nations. 7 According to Khrushchev,
this movement would mark the end of Soviet control over Eastern Europe. This new policy
http://libcom.org/history/1956-the-hungarian-revolution
http://countrystudies.us/hungary/37.htm
5 http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/imre_nagy.htm
6 http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~sgati/gatiproductions/starting_over/revolution.htm
3
4
7
http://www.umich.edu/~historyj/pages_folder/articles/Soviet_Intervention_in_the_Hung
arian_Revolution_of_1956.pdf
became very widespread in Poland during summer and fall of 1956. The Polish
demonstrated their thoughts on the situation via anti-Soviet rebellions and reform minded
government. Such unrest in Poland caught the attention its surrounding countries
including Hungary. The Hungarians were furious with the state that their beloved country
was in and Prime Minister Nagy’s promises for independence and political freedom fueled
this anger. 8 On October 23, 1956, students in Budapest held a rally to support Poland’s
fight for self-government from the Soviet Union. This rally sparked violent demonstrations
involving fighting between the police and Hungarian rebels. The Soviet Party leader in
Hungary, Erno Gero, was alarmed by the violent opposition by the Hungarians and called
for military assistance. On October 24, 1956, Soviet troops had officially invaded Hungary
and the fighting had begun.9
2. Country Policy
Ever since April 4, 1949, Belgium has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.10 The Secretary-General of NATO called the Hungarian revolt "the collective
suicide of a whole people".11 The countries of NATO were obviously concerned with the
well being of the Hungarian people and felt the need to take action and help in any way
possible to restore peace to the international community.
Being a country in Western Europe and a member of NATO, we are influenced
politically by this issue in that this situation creates tensions in the overall European bloc.
We strongly believe in aiding the civilians of Hungary and preventing any refugees from
8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/4/newsid_2739000/27390
39.stm
9 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/hungary.htm
10 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52044.htm#About
11 http://erwin.bernhardt.net.nz/hungarian1956revolutionwiki.html
fleeing the country. Belgium, along with NATO, believes that Hungary should have the
freedom to choose their own government without any outside forces or threats influencing
them to change their way of life against is will. 12 Every country deserves the right to
national sovereignty and the Soviet Union is clearly infringing upon Hungary’s national
sovereignty.
3. Proposed Actions and Solutions
The country of Belgium believes that the ultimate priority in solving this situation is
the humanitarian aspect. The people of Hungary are suffering due to violence between
rebels and the Soviet army. In order to prevent further fleeing of refugees into nearby
countries, mainly Austria and Yugoslavia13, Belgium feels the need to give Hungarians a
reason to stay in their country as they wait for this violent period to pass. The International
Committee of the Red Cross, or the ICRC, established in 1863, works internationally to
provide humanitarian aid to those affected by conflict and violence and to promote laws
that protect these victims of war.14 The ICRC is funded by government donations and Red
Cross and Red Crescent societies. By improving living conditions and giving medical
attention to Hungarian citizens, Belgium is certain that the number of Hungarian refugees
in neighboring countries will be significantly reduced.
Furthermore, in the interest of peace in the international community, there is an
obvious need to rid Soviet control over Hungary as soon as possible. In order to prevent a
possible World War 3, this transition needs to be dealt with in the most humanitarian and
effective way possible. Belgium would first like to establish an armistice in the interest of
http://www.coldwar.hu/html/en/publications/kecskes_1956.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kentcsi/vol2no1/html/v02i1a07p_0001.htm
14 http://www.icrc.org/eng/who-we-are/index.jsp
12
13
saving lives on both sides of this conflict. During this armistice, it would be in the best
interest of both parties to discuss ways to calmly resolve this situation. In order to create
an effective and sustainable solution to this problem, both sides should both benefit from
creating peace whether it be through trade, currency, or any other means possible. Along
with the rest of the world, Belgium wishes for a quick end to this situation, but it is
imperative that both sides are satisfied with the end product.