2015  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE SITUATION

The year is 1961 and Europe is divided, and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Germany, split since the close of the Second World War into two states, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) to the East, and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to the West. The two states, remade by the victors of the war in their own image, the FRG after the Western Allies’ liberal-democracies, and the GDR after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ (USSR) communist ideals, represent the focal point of a world caught in an ideological struggle between the superpowers.

While the ideological tensions ebb and flow the world over, as popular uprisings depose former colonial powers and install socialist state planning throughout the Third World, NATO’s members are tense as they watch the falling dominoes with growing unease. However, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies face their own problems, of troubled economies, dissenting populaces from Budapest to Warsaw itself. As well, east Europeans are fleeing to the West in the hundreds of thousands.

The countries of the Eastern Bloc are growing desperate to stop the outflow of their citizens from their utopian societies. Rumblings in the diplomatic pipelines have indicated that some major action from the Soviets and their allies is in the works. As the North Atlantic Council holds an emergency session, the representatives wait at the edge of their seats for the latest intelligence update as their eyes, and soon the eyes of the world, turn to the city which perhaps better than any other, represents a world divided. As history unfolds, all eyes turn to Berlin.

2015  

YOUR TASK

The committee will function as a typical North Atlantic Council committee, insofar as consensus will need to be found among members on concerted action to address the issues facing the alliance. However, where it differs wildly from other Model NATO committees is that the decisions and actions taken by delegates in reaction to the scenarios confronting them, will directly affect the outcomes and course of the committee. Delegates will be re-writing history, for the better, or if they are not wary, for the worse. What this means is that each of the five committee sessions the delegates will be meeting, will constitute five different “days” or points of time in this scenario as it progresses. The delegates will not know what date will come next, it could be two consecutive days, or it the timeline could jump ahead significantly. They will be filled in as to what has transpired in the time that has passed, how their actions have made differences in the simulation, and what new challenges have arrived as a consequence, or perhaps in spite of, those decisions they arrive at, and what course of action they took.

Throughout the session, delegates may be provided with updates from their chairs as the action on that particular “day” occurs. This committee will have a great deal of interaction between the delegates, and their chairs as the scenario unfolds. What this means for the delegates, is that they will need to arrive at a consensus rapidly in order to address the issues they are presented with during each separate session, as well as trying to think two steps ahead, and plan for the longer term resolution of the scenario that is placed before them. It will be a challenging task, but the rewards will be greater. However, failure to reach consensus and act, will have direct, and perhaps dire consequences for the committee.

After all, this is 1961, and the representatives will have to stand “eyeball to eyeball” with the Warsaw Pact, in the freezing days of the Cold War.

PREPARE YOURSELF

Delegates that choose to participate in this newest addition to Carleton’s MNATO programme will find themselves faced with a task both challenging and deeply rewarding should they prepare themselves adequately. Delegates should prepare for this committee naturally by conducting a great deal of research into NATO during the Cold War, leading up to 1961, with a particular focus on what tensions were present during this time, and what the inter-relationships of their particular country were other member countries in NATO at this time. Shrewd delegates wishing to perhaps plan ahead, would also look into what the Warsaw Pacts priorities and concerns were at the time.

2015  

A preliminary list of source material from which delegates may begin to develop their general positions and a sense of what NATO’s geopolitical concerns were at the time is provided below. PLEASE NOTE, this is by no means sufficient to tackle this committee, and delegates will be expected to be well-versed in the variety of possible topics that may be thrown their way.

REFERENCES

• NATO’s strategic concepts, from 1949 to present: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_56626.htm?selectedLocale=en

• Beatrice Heuser’s “The Development of NATO’s Nuclear Strategy.” In Contemporary European History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (March 1995): 37-66.

• Marc Trachtenberg’s excellent book on Europe for the first half of the Cold War, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963.

• A very brief overview of the Warsaw Pact: http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/TheWarsawPact.asp