Dear delegates,
It’s my utmost pleasure to welcome you all to the fifth edition of MINI-ONU and especially to this Security Council meeting that takes place back in 1982 (even before I was born!), the first historical committee held in English in the history of the event! Needless to say, I’m fully convinced that we’re going to learn a lot during the days we’re together, besides having lots of fun!
Allow me to talk a little bit about myself. I’m currently attending the sixth semester of the International Relations undergraduate programme at PUC-Minas. When it comes to our natural issue here – MUNs – I’m proud to say that I achieved great results in all nine simulations I participated as a delegate, being experienced with a vast array of countries and foreign policies. Moreover, I’m the Media Director of our very own simulations club – IOSC, not only participating of but also having chaired dozens of small UN sessions at PUC over the years. Even more relevant is the fact that I’ve taken part in all five editions of MINI-ONU, two as a delegate, one as assistant-director to the Historical Security Council, last year as the Academic Secretary of the event, and now as the Chairman of such a special committee as ours.
Of course I wouldn’t be able to carry out this effort without the helping hands of my Assistant-Directors, Aurélia and Frederico. Both are in their second year of college (Lella is attending the fourth semester and Fred is coursing the third) and of MINI-ONU, having taken part as volunteers last year. This year they decided to take a step further and here they are, performing their functions with care and perfection. I would like to thank them for their support, kindness and friendship which have made of us a real team. We’re certainly sharing a great (maybe the greatest) expectation on this Council.
Why did I choose Sabra and Shatila for our discussions? First of all, because it was the peak of a war between Israel and Lebanon that began in 1978 and lasted for almost twenty years, receiving much attention from the United Nations since its outbreak and only reaching its end in 2000, thus leaving a scar in both countries’ history. Secondly, the massacre reflects the very worst of what has been happening in the Middle-East since the creation of Israel and the independence of its Arab neighbours, being an opportunity for you to study in depth the question of the Palestine region. Finally, I took this chance to provide you with a discussion whose core is neither the USA nor the USSR, in a time these superpowers meant (almost) everything, therefore shifting our focus to a regional tension with roles being played by rather different protagonists.
As my final considerations by now, I would like to thank the support of some friends that have definitely made the difference to my work in this year’s event: Andrea Motta, Érika Molinari, Virgílio Franceschi, Luiz Feldman, Shênia Kellen, Bernardo Moretzsohn, Pedro Groppo, Lucas Rezende, Carlos and Roberto Gama, Dawisson Lopes, Fabiana Pierre, Professor Eugenio Diniz, Professor Danny Zahreddine and many others whose names wouldn’t fit in a single page.
Should any doubt or comment come up, feel free to contact us at our personal e-mail addresses. And, once more, welcome to this extraordinary trip back to 1982!
All the best,
Guilherme Casarões
Director
1
Aurélia Neves
Assistant-Director
Frederico Macedo
Assistant-Director
1
Introduction to the Historical Committee: September 19, 1982[1]
Model United Nations are often composed by two types of committees: the ones that take place in the present, which intend to reproduce debates that are currently on the UN or another International Organisation agenda, and the Historical Committees, which simulate a given day or period directly related to a specific event in the past. Whereas the first kind seeks for attaining solutions to the questions debated that will (or would) be implemented in the future, the latter intends to devise an “alternative future” as realistic as the future that really occurred by the means of analysing characteristics and negotiation processes between the involved actors.
This Study Guide should be read with this particularity of the Historical Committee in mind. Data presented here from now on refer to before September 19, 1982, the day that the Security Council is meeting to debate over the massacre of Sabra and Shatila and, ultimately, over the Middle-Eastern issue in general. The words related to time such as “recently”, “today”, “nowadays” are actually referred to 1982... so all of you should get into the mood of those days, certainly before (but not long before) we were born, when there still was a Wall that divided Germany in two, when there were two great powers and ideologies around which alliances and relations between nations were built – even though distance between such poles would gradually decrease in time.
The 1980’s in general is seen as “the lost decade” for many countries and it is likewise a somewhat blurred time to International Relations as a whole. 1982 was not a year that spoke much by itself, however being part of a greater process. That year reflected much of the economic tension that arose with the 1979 oil crisis and, when it comes to the Cold War, 1982 was marked by the hardening of some positions within the West, specially due to Ronald Reagan’s and Margaret Thatcher’s policies towards the rest of the world, and bade farewell to the last full-term strict-sense communist administration in the USSR with the death of Leonid Brezhnev. On the other hand, some positions were not that hard whatsoever, such as Mitterrand’s socialist administration in France, or the People’s Republic of China which was strengthening ties with the West, only to mention a few.
The year of 1982 was also marked by one of the most controversial events in the course of the situation in the Middle-East: the “Operation Peace for the Galilee”, set by the Israeli forces in an attempt to cease ever-growing terrorist activity performed by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation from the Lebanese territory. Within the course of this operation, the massacre of Sabra and Shatila was brought forth. Now try to imagine the Middle-Eastern tinder box, once again about to explode, amidst all these Cold-War feelings, mix them up, and you will find how it is to get into the mood of that time.
Introduction to the United Nations Security Council
The United Nations, created in 1945 with the purpose of saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, has in its Security Council the body that holds primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Established under Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council is empowered by Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the Charter. Unlike the League of Nations, the international organisation that attempted to keep world peace during the inter-war period of 1919-1939 by the means of recommendatory actions, the United Nations has a coercive capacity upon states, which can be exerted on the discretion of its Security Council.
The Security Council acts as a mediator and pacifier when, under Chapter VI, it performs its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. Under Chapter VII the Council deals with situations it understands as being breaches of the peace, threats to the peace or acts of aggression, and the resolutions it adopts on these matters are binding upon all states, members or not of the United Nations. Such enforceable measures range from logistical and economic embargoes to the authorisation of the use of force.
The Security Council works continuously, and a Permanent Representative of each of its members must be accredited with the Organisation at Headquarters in New York. The UNSC agenda is also continuously open, so that any diplomatic mission may bring topics before the Council for its appraisal. Nonetheless, should an international crisis arise, the Security Council shall stop its discussion and proceed to the assessment of the crisis and only afterwards resume its previous debate.
With regard to the voting process of the UNSC, the Council members, each of whom entitled to one vote, deal with procedural and substantive matters. Decisions on procedural matters require nine affirmative votes to be made. Decisions on substantive matters require, accordingly to Article 27 (3) of the Charter, nine affirmative votes including the concurring affirmative votes of the Permanent Members.
At present, the Security Council has fifteen seats, five of which are permanent and ten of which are non-permanent ones, elected by the UN General Assembly for two year terms. The Permanent Members are the People’s Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. The Non-Permanent Members are: Ireland, Japan, Panama, Spain and Uganda whose membership term ends on 31 December 1982, and Guyana, Jordan, Poland, Togo and Zaire, whose membership term ends on 31 December 1983.
Statement of the Problem
September 18, 1982. Headlines around the world showed that several civilians had been killed in Beirut, Lebanon. According to numbers provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 1,500 victims were counted so far, most of which were Palestinians who lived in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila[2].
Just as the massacre hit the news world-wide, a Security Council meeting was called up so that the international community could assess the reasons and outcomes of the event named after the camps where the bloodshed has taken place. What is already known is that the killing was brought forth by the Phalanges, the strongest Christian Militia in Lebanon, in an attempt to root out terrorist cells believed were located there. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) were holding positions all over West Beirut, having thus the control of the refugee camps. Whereas the consequences of that massacre are still uncertain, there are some points that can provide us with some understanding on the question.
First of all, there is the unstable political situation in Lebanon. The country has been facing the cruelty of a civil war since 1975, with periods of special harshness such as 1978 and from June 1982 until this day. In addition to this, Bashir Gemayel[3], the recently-elected president of Lebanon, was killed in a bomb explosion in East Beirut five days ago – just before his inauguration could take place. Gemayel was a Maronite Catholic and the leader of the Lebanese Christian Militia, and considered by many as being directly supported by the Israeli government.
Secondly, the day after Gemayel’s death was marked by Israeli forces moving forward into West Beirut as part of a strategy often called “Operation Iron Brain”. This move prompted both a White House call for Israeli withdrawal from West Beirut and a Resolution (520, of September 17) from this Council with a similar request. It is noteworthy that Israeli troops already held positions within the Lebanese territory since June 6, when Israel launched “Operation Peace for the Galilee”. The operation was aimed at removing the threat to Israel’s northern settlements posed by Palestinian guerrillas, who had entrenched themselves in Southern Lebanon during the spring and performed a number of murderous missions since then.
Relations between Israel and Syria, and the latter and Lebanon must also be borne in mind to properly understand the dynamics of the conflict. Likewise the IDF, Syrian troops hold positions in Northern Lebanon and are constantly active towards Lebanese domestic affairs since the outbreak of the Civil War in 1975.
Finally, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) plays a pivotal role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, standing as a major focus of instability to the region. For more than a decade Lebanon harboured PLO members to carry on acts against Israel, based on an agreement dated 1969 between this organisation and the Lebanese Prime-Minister, also known as the “Cairo Agreement”.
Tensions within Lebanon, between Christians and Muslims, Lebanese and Palestinian Arabs, the PLO, Israel and Syria are not only the main components of one of the most dramatic moments in the history of the Middle-East but also the background within which the United Nations Security Council is expected to take an immediate action.
History of the Problem
When analysing the course of events in the Middle-East region from ancient times to today, one can find countless facts or processes which deserve being taken as a starting point to the understanding of the reasons behind the massacre of Sabra and Shatila. For this study guide, however, two axes were deliberately devised around which the history of the problem could be built: the Arab-Israeli Wars, that explain much of the current relationship between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states in general, and the contemporary Lebanese history, focusing on the state of affairs between that country and Israel, the PLO, and Syria. Even if it may be over-summarised at times, this section aims at presenting the most relevant facts and events that ultimately led to the slaughter in Beirut.
The Independence War (1948-49)
In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a “Division Plan” of the Palestine territory, thereby partitioning it into a Jewish and an Arab state. Greater Jerusalem area would fall under international control. Whereas the Jewish people supported the decision, the Arabs fully rejected the partition plan, as they felt they were being marginalised in their own land. Great Britain, then, started removing their troops from Palestine and on May 15, 1948, upon its complete withdrawal and facing a void of authority, the Jewish population proclaimed their independence.
The Independence War (1948-49), also known as the first Arab-Israeli war, was in fact the response from various Arab states such as Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to the declaration of independence by the Jews. Despite its Arab neighbours quantitative military superiority, coordination and organisation were lacking and the Arab armies were often at odds with each other, seeking to incorporate territory from Palestine into their own states. Despite their small numbers, the Jews were well organized, well disciplined and well trained. Hence, Israel won the war and consolidated the newborn state and its army, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF)[4].
After the war was over, what was legally to be the state of Palestine fell under control of Jordan (West Bank and East Jerusalem), Egypt (the Gaza strip) and Israel. The multilateral effort of building two states in the region was then put into an end, at least until today.
The Suez Campaign (1956)
On July 27, 1956, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalisation of the Suez Canal before an enthusiastic crowd in Alexandria, proceeding with the closure of the Tiran Strait thereafter. It did not take long until the outbreak of the second Arab-Israeli war: exactly two months after the Canal was nationalised, the Israeli army invaded Sinai and captured the whole of it in only four days, backed up by Great Britain and France, major shareholders in the company that built and ran the Canal. Their interference on the conflict, however, forced a rapid settlement, upon which the Egyptians gained the control of the Canal but were bound to keep it open to all nations. This was only made possible due to the British about-face, which “was prompted by Soviet threats to use ‘every kind of modern destructive weapon’ to stop the violence and the United States decision to make a much-needed $ 1 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund contingent on a cease-fire”[5]. Israel withdrew its forces from the Sinai Peninsula the following year bowing to American pressure, ensued by the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the region.
The Six-Day War (1967)
A new crisis emerged in the region when Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq signed a mutual-defence pact in 1967, therefore meaning they would act together if an aggression from Israeli forces occurred. Just as Egypt deployed troops along the border with Israel and signalled its willingness to close the Tiran Strait once again, Israel responded with a uncanny attack which shattered the Arab air forces assured its victory on the ground in only six days. A UN-brokered cease-fire was agreed in a few days, by the time of which Israel had took control of the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, the Jordanian West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Syrian Golan Heights.
The Six-Day War was a milestone in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which consolidated the military supremacy of the IDF and introduced a new element to that question: the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, formed between 1964 and 1967 by the Arab states but soon becoming autonomous. As a result of that war, UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) was approved, demanding Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and still considered as the backbone of any sort of peace negotiations.