HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PAN-AMERICAN MODEL
UNITED NATIONS 2015
HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Suez Canal Crisis (1956-1957)

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Dear Delegates,
Both my co-chair Alessandro Bomcompagni, and I, Daniel Ortuo, would like to
welcome you to Pan- American School Model United Nations Conference of 2015. We
are both aiming for the fulfillment of the delegates expectations as well as providing a
high level committee within the conference. This years goal is to implement the use
of historical councils with the purpose of successfully rearranging in a realistic manner
the course of international history, experimenting with the worst and most influential
conflicts of the XX Century. This innovation focuses on preparedness and the
development of analyzing and debating skills as well as an increasing awareness of
the past, achieving prosperous proposals and possible solutions for future crises.
Since 2012 as a sixth grader at Pan-American School, I have attended MUN
conferences in Costa Rica as well as my co-chair. Therefore, we understand the
curiosity and potential concerns existing within the fellow delegations. Moreover, we
commit to answer any possible doubts immediately to guarantee the delegates
accurate preparation for the committee. A broad perspective will be addressed in order
to provide a better understanding of the topic being discussed, directing the council to a
successful and fruitful debate with diversity in countries opinions, proposals, and
actions.
This years conference has designated the Suez Canal Crisis (1956) to the
Historical General Assembly, considering the topic is of vital importance and relevance
when addressing the issues generated during the unarmed conflict between Western
Nations and the Soviet Union. Also, it includes the non-aligned countries forced into the
issue. This vulnerable area was a major scenario for conflict due to its strategic position
at the Sinai Peninsula (separating Europe, Africa, and Asia) and as the name mentions a
canal that connects the three continents and allows economic and diplomatic facilities
and development. Nevertheless, some countries positioned at the Western Bloc felt
threatened by the attempts of Egypt to nationalize the canal, which led to a major armed
conflict, invasions, and a ridiculed attempt for peace.
Please feel free to contact both my co-chair and me to our e-mails if you have
doubts, concerns, recommendations, or any possible discomfort. We encourage
delegates not only to come prepared but also willing and eager to learn as well as
relate with other people. Once again, we welcome fellow delegates, faculty advisors,
and other invitees to join in order to surpass expectations, and arrive to a consensus
that will guarantee the progress of the individual and his or her skills.1
Sincerely,
Daniel Ortuo
Chair
daniel.ortuno@panam.ed.cr

Alessandro Bomcompagni
Co-Chair
alessandro.bomcompagni@panam.ed.cr

Please excuse some variations in the formatting of the document given to some technical failures.

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Introduction
The Historical General Assembly in
the Pan- American School Model United
Nations Conference 2015, will address
the crisis of the Suez Canal in 1956, or
also referred as one of the armed
conflicts consequence of the Cold War
(unarmed rivalry between Western and
Soviet ideologies). The committee is
directed towards the analysis of the
situation in the Sinai Peninsula from each
countrys viewpoint, whether it was
influenced by an alignment, or an
economic and political interest. On the
other hand, the purpose of the council is
to aim for a negotiation and consensus
that remains beneficial for the parties and
their opposition, depending once again
on the governmental and international
communitys concerns. Furthermore, the
commitment towards a peaceful or at
least an effective solution and accurate
proposals to other organisms present in
the United Nations has been acquired.
This has the sole purpose of maintaining
a predominant decision on the
international scenario and potential
avoidance of future crises.
The origin of the crisis was in the XIX
(nineteenth) Century or more specifically,
1869, after the Suez Canal ended its
construction
under
the
French
Government and Ferdinand de Lesseps.
The major motivation for the task was the
necessity of major global leaders to
transport goods from the Mediterranean
to the Red Sea, instead of pursuing
massive investments to use the route
surrounding the African Continent. In
other words, the solution would decrease
economic expenses and would develop
adequately the international economy.

Nevertheless, major opposing nations,

such as Great Britain, feared French
control of the canal, which resulted in a
strategic position of the canal as well as
the benefits previously mentioned.
A series of treaties were negotiated by
the international community. According
to the Constantinople Convention of
October 29th, 1888: The Suez Maritime
Canal shall always be free and of
commerce or of war, without distinction of
flag. (parr. 1) Regardless of its
specialized function, the treaty called
upon the attention of nations whose
interest remained in using or acquiring
the canal. Nevertheless, the issues were
briefly interrupted after Egypt was
declared a sovereign nation in the XX
Century (1922), which would guarantee
security to the countrys population.
However,
soon
after
achieving
independence from the British, the
Egyptians committed a series of acts
(e.g. claiming Sudanese sovereignty)
that enraged Great Britains government.
The French, not being directly involved or
being the protagonist in this crisis,
remained interested in what happened
due to political and economic affairs.
Regardless of historical affairs that led
to European interventions in the area, the
issue was centered on a conflict between
Egyptian and Israeli religious ideologies,
which since the creation of the Israeli
State, have angered neighboring
countries. On the other hand, before the
tripartite invasion of the Sinai Peninsula,
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
threatened to act if the Egyptians were
attacked; this action was motivated by
the nationalization of the canal (opposed

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

by Western governments). On the other
invasions after World War II. Cultural,
hand, countries such as the United
political,
economic
and
religious
differences led to an armed encounter
States approved the use of negotiations
between Egypt, France, United Kingdom,
rather than military interventions in the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and
Middle East, and was followed by other
Israel, among others, which separated
nations. The purpose of the committee is
both politically and socially the
to find alternative solutions for the conflict
population, increasing nationalism and
that do not aim for a temporary approach
extremism in each one. The main goal
but rather an immediate and permanent
remains to find an alternative solution
response in order to grant stability and
that may provide well-being to the
prosperity to the area.
population of the moment, as well as
The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956
peaceful diplomacy and subsequent
required support and accurate proposals
avoidance of further conflict.
made by delegations in order to avoid
more casualties in one of the
worst
______________________

History of the Committee

The General Assembly represents
one of the most influential committees
formed by the international community
after the decline of both Germany and
Japan during World War II in an effort
to provide peace to the population.
According to the United Nations (n.d.),
The General Assembly (GA) is the
main deliberative, policymaking and
representative organ of the UN. (parr.
1). In other words, its responsibility
relies on the collaboration of all the
members of the organization in order
to aim for foreign amity. On the other
hand, the same product of internal
distribution is categorized by three
specific aspects that define its function
within the body which include,
jurisdiction
on
military
issues,
international law, and main functions.
Before the General Assembly was
established, failed attempts of creating
a medium for consensus were made.
At first, European Nations addressed
several of their sociopolitical issues
with dialogue, ranging from the
repartition of colonies to the Treaty of

Versailles. On the other hand, the

League of Nations proposed by the
United States of America and its
representative
Woodrow
Wilson,
deteriorated and was later aborted
even though its initial entrepreneur did
not participate in further negotiations.
Nevertheless,
countries
of
the
international community decided that
another major conflict involving the
use of lethal weaponry was to be
halted
before devastation
was
observed.
The internal organization of the
United
Nations
was
formed
approximately in 1945, with the unique
reason of avoiding subsequent
violence across diverse areas of the
world. In other words, it utilized this
avoidance of conflict and potential
crises in order to organize political
leaders into a sole group of peaceful
resolutions. The same was sponsored
by a group of five different countries
that fought in the side of the Allies
during the Second World War, being
France, the United Kingdom, the
United States of America, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, and the

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Popular
Republic
of
China.
Nevertheless, the organization had
with fifty one (51) original members,
which included the five founders and
others such as Australia, Canada,
Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt,
among others. Throughout time
however, other members were
subsequently added as they were
recognized or if there was an interest.
For example, between 1955 and 1956,
the
assembly
accepted
the
membership of Albania, Austria,
Bulgaria, Cambodia, Finland, Italy,
Spain, Japan, Sudan, Tunisia, among
others, nearly ten years after the
organisms foundation (after World
War II).
According to the United Nations
(n.d.),
the
General
Assembly
possesses the specific attributions and
may consider acting upon the following
situations:
() Consider and approve
the United Nations budget
and establish the financial
assessments of Member
States;
Elect the non-permanent
members of the Security
Council and the members of
other United Nations
councils and organs and, on
the recommendation of the
Security Council, appoint the
Secretary-General;
Consider and make
recommendations on the
general principles of
cooperation for maintaining
international peace and
security, including
disarmament;
Discuss any question
relating to international

peace and security and,

except where a dispute or
situation is currently being
discussed by the Security
Council, make
recommendations on it;
Discuss, with the same
exception, and make
recommendations on any
questions within the scope of
the Charter or affecting the
powers and functions of any
organ of the United Nations;
Initiate studies and make
recommendations to
promote international
political cooperation, the
development and
codification of international
law, the realization of human
rights and fundamental
freedoms, and international
collaboration in the
economic, social,
humanitarian, cultural,
educational and health
fields;
Make recommendations for
the peaceful settlement of
any situation that might
impair friendly relations
among nations;
Consider reports from the
Security Council and other
United Nations organs. ()
(parr 6).
One of the most important
restrictions established upon the
General Assembly is that of
intervening militarily without the
Security
Councils
consent.
Notwithstanding, a United Nations
Resolution approved the intervention
of the General Assembly if the council
highest in authority did act accordingly

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

or adequately. These protocols were
called Special Emergency Sessions,
which was first tried during 1956 in
order to discuss and subsequently act
upon the Suez Canal Crisis. The past
statements describe and explain the
development of the organism since the
foundation and until the crisis to be
discussed,
counting
with
the
mentioned protocols and attributions.

History of the Problem

The Suez Canal (17th November,
1869) was built as a mechanism that
would connect the Mediterranean
Sea to the Red Sea via the branches
of the Nile River in Egypt. It is
believed to be the shortest link
between the east and the west due
to its unique geographic location
(Suez Canal Authority, 2008), being
as it serves as an international
navigation route. Further on, it has
been considered as the first artificial
canal used in trading and traveling,
with an extension of 160 kilometers.
In 1875, the British purchased
the shares from the Canal owned by
the Egyptians given their external
debt,
nevertheless,
France
continued to hold a majority. By
1888, when the Convention of
Constantinople was signed, and
according to Article I, the canal was
opened to embarkations regardless
of the nation that would send them.
The Convention further stressed the
route as being able to be utilized in
times of both peace and war. In this
same Article, it is stated that the
Canal shall never be subject to any
blockades.
This
Convention

consisted of a treaty signed by

Germany, the United Kingdom,
Spain, Austro-Hungary, France, the
Netherlands, Italy, the Ottoman
Empire, and Russia on October 29th,
1888.
When the announcement of
independence of the state of Israel
was given in 1948, war broke out
when the five Arab nations took into
their hands to invade the former
territory of Palestine, under Egyptian
command. Trained troops from
Transjordan, continued to enter the
war in the areas designated as part
of the Arab state under the United
Nations Partition Plan and the
corpus separatum of Jerusalem
(US Department of State, N-D). After
the UN was able to administer two
cease-fires, the fighting continued
on to 1949, and Israel did not reach
a formal armistice until February.
The British still considered the
canal a vital method to maintain both
their colonial interests and maritime
power, being this the main reason
for the creation and signing of the
Anglo-Egyptian Treaty (1936). In
this document, Great Britain was
allowed to maintain a defensive
force, in order to protect their
interests along the zone of the Suez
Canal. However, in 1954, both
countries signed a seven-year
agreement that superseded the
1936 treaty and provided for the
gradual withdrawal of all British
troops from the zone (Suez Canal
Authority, 2008). It proceeded to be
under the control of both countries
until it was nationalized in 1956 by
the Nasser.

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Regardless from not being within
the time frame of the conference, an
explanation of the actual outcome is
provided. After the tripartite invasion
of Egypt carried by the British,
French and Israelis in 1956, the
canal was closed. Nevertheless, it
reopened to navigation in 1957. Said
assault was motivated by the rage of
these three countries towards the
decision announced by president
Gamal
Abd
El Naser,
the
nationalization of the canal. Years
later, in 1967, while Egypt was at
war with Israel, the canal was once
again closed, and only reopened in
1975, after both parties signed the
second disengagement accord.

Statement of the Problem

Since the late 1800's the property
of the Suez Canal has been
negotiated and the rules of the area
have been in constant change. The
United Nations, a recently formed
organization, has started to discuss
international
conflicts
between
countries that had to be involved in
this crisis that was happening with the
Israeli-Palestine conflict.
We are right now under the
emergency special session weekend
and we need to address this problem
with
extreme
caution.
These
countries, since they have been
fighting for this canal, cannot be
allowed to let them solve this problem
by themselves so international actions
need to be taken to get a resolution.

Current Situation
The nationalization of the Suez
Canal on Egypts behalf seemed to
be an international offense to three
major parties: the United Kingdom,
France, and Israel. On October 29,
Israeli forces entered the Suez Canal
area after being directly threatened
by the decisions achieved by
Egyptian parties. Soon after, on
October 31, both Great Britain and
France invaded the area to form a
tripartite union of countries with the
aim of gaining once again the
economic and geographical benefits
of the canal. However, these series of
invasions
had
no
legitimate
background or collaboration of the
United Nations or any other
international
organism.
(The
Guardian, n.d.). The Sinai Peninsula
has now been taken over by the
tripartite forces and military troops
through unlawful movements within
the
designated
territory.
Notwithstanding, both the United
States of America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, have
shown disagreement towards the
military actions the north-African
country has been forced to endure.
This has caused an imminent rise of
an international and diplomatic crisis
that has led to the impossibility of
collaboration
among
nations.
Tensions are also reducing the pace
of the process of arguing for a
resolution accepted by a majority.

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Bloc Positions
The current escalating crisis in
Eastern Europe, specifically Hungary,
has caused countries to enforce their
influence on the newly started ArabIsraeli conflict. The Soviet Union was
dismayed by these actions and
threatened to dictate military actions
not only in the Middle East but also
within the European Continent. The
international
community has
requested through the Security
Council to demand a ceasefire
through
immediate
decisions,
reestablish the secure freedom of
navigation through the Canal, and
force the removal of foreign and
illicit troops in the Sinai Peninsula.
The lack of support on behalf of
veto
powers
reduced
the
trustworthiness of the Security
Council.
Therefore,
the
crisis
was given to resolve to the
General
Assembly,
providing
powers
to override the Security
Council.
The conflict has two
possible outcomes: an intensification
of instantaneous military actions and
a subsequent hazard to non-aligned
countries, or a resolution to the
economic and political interests
through peaceful diplomacy.

The Soviet Union or the

USSR experiences
a
relative
period of stability regardless of
the lack of support
of
their
ideologies
from Western nations
such as the United States due to the
aim for Communism. The United
States refused to provide economic
aid to the Egyptian government
for
infrastructure
and military
strength given the actions of the
USSR in Czechoslovakia. The
Soviet
leader,
Nikita
Khrushchev, viewing the acts as
strategies
to spread influence,
agreeing to support with weaponry
and
financially,
the Egyptians.
When the country nationalized the
canal and subsequently forbid Israeli
cargo ships, its allies decided to
invade Egypt in a tripartite military
operation.
The
Soviet
Union
disapproved these movements and
was even prepared to aim for a halt of
the invasion with missile launching,
military actions, diplomacy, among
others.
The United States of America has
had a major impact on the area of the
Middle East, by political and
economic media, and therefore, an
increasing influence on the area
during the escalating tensions with
the Soviet Union. Their major beliefs
were centralized in expanding the
sphere of influence towards the
Middle East, yet it condemned the
nationalization of the Suez Canal
because of the lack of commercial
benefits it would provide to its allies
such as France and the United
Kingdom.
Nevertheless,
the
position to aim for a peaceful
solution through both international law
and
the
United
Nations
jurisdiction
was strengthened. In
other
words,
the
government
neither believed the lack

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

of military forces would result
catastrophic nor would Nassers
control of the Suez Canal and the
Sinai Peninsula. The major plan was
to halt and produce a lack of
momentum to the illicit invasion
that had violated another countrys
sovereignty.
French Republic
France on the other hand, was a
major participant during the invasion
of the Suez Canal in Egypt. One of
the major reasons of why this
republic remained
in
a
state
of
being threatened directly by
Nassers plans is the company who
had aimed for the creation of the
Suez Canal, which was French.
Notwithstanding,
the
government-led actions with Guy
Mollet as Prime Minister, called
the actions of the Egyptians as a
breach of international law, but also
as a direct attack on the country's
prestige
and
economic
interests. (BBC, n.d., parr. 28). On
the other hand, the Algerian War
due to colonialist methods in
Africa,
was
causing
major
concern among
the
French
government officials, a motive to
regain the Sinai territory and with it,
the economic and political benefits of
the canal. These people also
observed Nasser as a supporter
of
Arab
Uprisings
in Northern
Africa and the Middle East, a reason
of why he had to be controlled
according to them. At last, the loyalty
to the Israeli State was a major cause
for the military interventions in the
Sinai Peninsula, as it was viewed as
strategic and a benefit to the
European countries and specifically
France and the United Kingdom.

United Kingdom
Great Britain, specifically during the
XX Century, had undergone a variety
of progress in both economic and
political manners. However, imperial
beliefs were also persistent among
their diplomats. This ideology had as a
product the belief of at least
possessing control of strategic areas
in the Middle East in order to boost the
economic prosperity of the country.
When Churchill was no longer the
Prime Minister, Eden took place as a
successor while introducing these
ideals. Subsequently, when the
Egyptian government felt threatened
by Western countries or had
resentment against their lack of
economic aid, they pretended to
control the Suez Canal Crisis.
However,
the
African
country
nationalized the canal, becoming the
control center of navigation, taxation,
among
other
aspects.
These
provocations caused a desire for
military interventions and the lack of
willingness to negotiate through
peaceful
diplomacy
within
the
international community. Conservative
ideologies were maintained and soon
caused the invasion of the Sinai
Peninsula
and
their
lack
of
collaboration to launch a ceasefire and
removal of their militia. (The
Economist, 2006).
Israel
Israel has already been facing
guerilla attacks along its border before
the crisis developed. To face these
threats, as they believed them to be,

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

the reactions consisted of harsh
retaliatory attacks in the Gaza Strip,
which was under Egyptian control, and
West Bank, which was under
Jordanian control. The chief-of-staff of
the Israel Defense Forces, Dayan,
acted as the protagonist of the
proposal for these retaliation attacks to
be harsh, as a response of the
infiltration through Israel`s borders
directed by Arab states. Dayan`s main
belief focused on how ferocity would
become a warning for any countries
involved. After Egypt nationalized the
Suez Canal and deployed troops along
the Israeli border, Dayan desired to
develop a preventive war against the
measure they saw as offensive. (The
Economist, 2006).

Egypt
The Egyptian government was the
major participant of the Suez Canal
Crisis of the Sinai Peninsula. In the
past, the North-African country had
been governed by British Imperialism,
as seen by locals and nationalist
forces. However, Egypt had gained its
independence and gained a major part
of a collaboration from the Soviet
Union. The head of state in 1956,
Gamal Abdel Nasser, had observed
the lack of collaboration of Western
countries such as the United States
and the United Kingdom regarding the
renovation of infrastructure within the
country. Therefore, after achieving
support and foreign aid from the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
president decided to nationalize the
Suez Canal and prohibit Israeli transit
or navigation through the same

construction. This extreme solution

proposed by the government, altered
negatively the perception of both Great
Britain and France, who agreed to
invade in a tripartite union to support
the Israeli State.

Questions a Resolution Must

Answer
1. How can the United Nations ensure
a peaceful resolution in the area?
2. How will the resolutions address this
problem in economic, cultural, and
political development?
3. Is the council requiring the
intervention of Non-Governmental
Organizations? What would the role of
these be?
4. In what order is the resolution going
to be completed? What short/long term
policies will be applied?
5. Should the UN interfere with
immediate actions? If so, what kind of
immediate actions should be taken?
6. Should this conflict be addressed
with heavier importance? Why?
7. What actions sould be considered
given the participation in an
emergency special session within the
General Assembly?

Conclusion
Other generations of the past have
not given an accurate solution or
importance to the issue being

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

discussed. However, Suez Canal, as
mentioned previously, have increased
both in size and levels of concern in
the international community. It is
important that the issue is solved with
an immediate response in the
proximate years so this conflict can
finally be terminated. We firmly believe
that the future debate will produce both

a consensus and viable solutions in

order to react and address the
problem. Collaboration of the different
countries, as seen in the United
Nations, solves issues in a peaceful
way. We want our delegate to have a
great experience in this council and a
powerful and inspiring debate.

References
1956: Suez and the end of empire. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1
An affair to remember. (2006, July 29). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
http://www.economist.com/node/7218678
Constantinople Convention, 1888. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
http://www
rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/brianl/docs/1888ConstantinopleConventio
on.pdf
Construction of the Suez Canal, 1869. (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/appl1en/suezconstr.html
Convention of Constantinople. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/convention_of_constantinople
First Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved
August 6,

2015, from

http://www.unsco.org/Documents/Resolutions/GA_EMR_1(1956).pdf

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FIRST UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE (UNEF I) - Background (Full

text). (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html
Members, United Nation, Growth, History of Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved
August 12,

2015, from http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

Official Documents System of the United Nations. (n.d.). Retrieved August

6, 2015, fromhttp://daccess
ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NL5/600/04/PDF/NL560004.pdf?
peElement
Suez Canal Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=8
Suez Canal Authority. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from
http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=37
Suez Crisis - Foreign Relations of the United States, 19551957, Suez Crisis,
July 26

December 31, 1956, Volume XVI - Historical Documents -

Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015, from

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/comp1
Suez

Crisis.

(n.d.).

Retrieved

http://www.history.com/topics/cold

August

5,

2015,

from

war/suez-crisis

12

HISTORICAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 - 19451952 - Milestones - Office of the Historian.

(n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945 1952/arab-israeli-war
The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24,
1949. (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2015.
Thompsell, A. (n.d.). Timeline: The Suez Crisis. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bl-Timeline-SuezCrisis.htm
United Nations Official Document. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/3354&Lang=E
United Nations, main body, main organs, General Assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved
August 6,

2015, from http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/background.shtml

13