Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HISTORICAL
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Soviet Invasion of Hungary
Algerian Revolt Against France
Suez Crisis
BY BRIAN COYNE
1
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Soviet Invasion of Hungary
secure. Yet other nations disagreed. When all of the Recent Developments
member states agree to do something, NATO can be ex-
tremely powerful; it, as a whole, can issue proclamations,
impose sanctions, and even take on military campaigns. The Hungarian Revolution
Additionally, it should be remembered that every ambas-
sador to NATO has the ear of his or her home government The Hungarian Revolution began on October 23,
and has great influence in making decisions. These dual 1956, when massive crowds took to the streets of Budapest
roles, of the ambassadors individually as officials of their and other cities, chanting “Russians go home!” and pro-
home governments and the ambassadors collectively as claiming their support for Nagy’s liberalization. Nagy freed
the brains of the Free World, add up to a great deal of many political prisoners in the coming days, announced
power indeed. his intention to withdraw Hungary from the Warsaw Pact,
and pleaded publicly for UN and Western help in oppos-
ing the Soviet intervention that could already be seen
coming. Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev, unable to defeat
the Hungarian liberals covertly, sent the Red Army into
the country on November 1. The USSR justified the inva-
SOVIET INVASION OF sion by claiming that Nagy was seeking to sabotage so-
cialism in Hungary and was governing illegally. Thus the
Warsaw Pact nations had a duty to intervene and restore
HUNGARY “legitimate” government.
2
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Soviet Invasion of Hungary
Opponents of Intervention
Containment was one of the most famous of the
various anti-Soviet strategies advocated in the United
States and elsewhere during the Cold War, but it was never Opponents of intervention argued that advocates
the only one. The debate over containment versus direct of intervention had miscalculated the potential dangers of
confrontation with the Soviets was the major question engagement. Perhaps the Soviets would back down in
that divided NATO at the time of the invasion of Hungary. the event of a demand from NATO, but perhaps they
States on the front-line of the Cold War, such as West would not. It was this second contingency that oppo-
Germany, tended to be the strongest advocates of con- nents of intervention feared. Any serious threat during
tainment because a war would most likely occur on their the Cold War (and these were the most stressful years of
soil. the Cold War) carried with it the implicit threat of escala-
tion, ending in global nuclear war. Could the leaders of
A Question of Ethics NATO justify risking nuclear war over Hungary? Dulles’
reply when asked about Western aid to Hungary appears
curt and unfeeling on face, but surely it concealed the
But this question went beyond simple expedi- anguish of a man who wanted to come to the aid of the
ency. In reality it was a question of principle. Each Hungarians but felt he could not take the risk.
member of NATO considered itself a bastion of democ- Instead, they proposed employing a doctrine of
racy in a world in which democracy was very much containment against the Soviets. Containment rested on
threatened. Furthermore, NATO as a whole had been the idea of respecting the existing spheres of influence of
set up with the specific purpose of preventing the forc- the superpowers. Hungary was without a doubt within
ible imposition of Communist rule on unwilling states the recognized sphere of Soviet influence. This perhaps
and peoples. The Hungarians had shown clearly that explains why the United States, among others, was not
they did not want Soviet domination, even if they were willing to take risks to defend Hungary, but did take ex-
also unwilling to embrace capitalism. Many argued that traordinary risks when the Soviets extended their influ-
NATO had a duty to intervene to protect Hungary. A ence to Cuba. In the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, US trained
number of prominent Hungarian leaders publicly begged anti-Communist forces landed in Cuba, and, in the Cuban
for the intervention, as they pointed to the streams of Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy declared
Hungarian refugees crossing into the West - each with a quarantine of the island and ordered that any ship con-
their own story of pain and misfortune because of the taining weapons be turned back. Both of these incidents
invasion. risked escalation.
3
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Algerian Revolt Against France
Member nations worried that a NATO supported were those who were willing to give up their language,
anti-Soviet revolt in the Soviet sphere of influence might religion, and culture.
cause the USSR to support pro-Communist revolts within
the Western sphere in the future. There was general agree-
ment that the Soviets had to be resisted in some places Recent Developments
and placated in others. Thus the question became where
the line ought to be drawn. It was by no means preor-
dained that Hungary had to be on one side of the line and
Cuba on the other. Instead, these decisions were made by The Revolt Begins
the leaders of NATO nations, but you just might choose
to make them differently.
The Algerian War of Independence, as it has
since been called, is considered to have begun on No-
vember 1, 1954, when fighters of the FLN (National Libera-
tion Front) attacked French police and military installa-
tions as well as other symbols of French authority. As the
ALGERIAN REVOLT months went by the insurgency and the French retalia-
tions grew increasingly bloody. Atrocities were commit-
ted on both sides. In August 1955, FLN guerrillas killed
AGAINST FRANCE 123 civilians, including babies and old women, outside
Philipeville, Algeria. Revenge came not only from the
French army but also from vigilante gangs of colonists
who roamed the countryside. It is estimated that 12,000
Muslims were killed in the aftermath of the Philippeville
History and Background massacre. The fighting escalated as time went on. A new
phase began on September 30, 1956, with the FLN bomb-
ing of Air France offices in Algiers, attacks that killed doz-
ens of civilians. That spring the FLN carried out 800 bomb-
French troops first invaded Algeria in 1830, but it ings and shootings in Algiers alone.
was not until the early 20th century that France estab-
lished complete control over the vast country, which France Responds
stretches thousands of kilometers from the shores of the
Mediterranean deep into the Sahara. Unlike most other
colonies, French settlers moved to Algeria en masse. By The French responded with ever harsher repris-
1956, almost ten percent of the country’s population was als, and by 1958 the conflict brought France to the brink of
European. In World War II, Algerians fought alongside civil war. French military leaders in Algiers, afraid that the
the Free French forces and many distinguished themselves government in Paris would abandon the struggle, seized
fighting against the Germans and Italians. control of the country and soon occupied Corsica, threat-
After the war, the French government took the ening to march on Paris if their demands were not met.
position that Algeria would not be included in the wave of Charles de Gaulle became leader of France, quickly estab-
decolonization that was sweeping away European colo- lished a new constitution, and prevented a civil war in
nial empires, including the French Empire. France annexed France. All the while the war in Algeria itself dragged on.
Algeria directly, making it a part of metropolitan France Finally, in May 1961, France and the FLN came to an ac-
itself. The French government used the French settlers, cord on a cease-fire and an independence referendum. On
many of whose families had by then lived in Algeria for July 3, 1962, Algeria formally became independent. Over
generations, as justification for this policy. However, by one million Algerians, including virtually the entire Euro-
the 1950s, Algerian dissatisfaction with this situation in- pean and Jewish communities as well as Algerian Mus-
creased. The European minority owned most of the pro- lims who had supported the French, fled Algeria for France
ductive land in the country and controlled all good jobs. and elsewhere. Estimates of the death toll have ranged
The only Algerians who were able to make social progress from 350,000 to 1.5 million.
4
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Algerian Revolt Against France
NATO’s Role ing their ideals abroad, what was often referred to as the
“civilizing mission”.
Algeria, Indochina, Madagascar, and other colo-
The conflict over Algeria exposed deep-seated nies that the French tried to hold on to were seen as for-
philosophical differences within NATO. While the Brit- merly benighted lands to which the French had brought
ish, with American encouragement, were withdrawing from the benefits of modern technology, self-government, Chris-
their empire in the years after the end of World War II, the tianity, and the French language. For many leaders in
French were ready to shed some colonies but fiercely de- Paris, it was simply ungrateful of the Algerians to be more
termined to keep others, particularly the ones that had interested in Arabic and Islam and to believe that self-
major strategic significance or high European settler popu- government meant more than elective local councils loyal
lations. Algeria fit both of these requirements. The rest of to Paris.
the world viewed Algeria as a colony, one nation occu-
pied by another. The French saw things differently. In France Finds Support
1956, Algeria technically was not a colony; rather, it was
governed as an integral part of France that just happened
to be south of the Mediterranean instead of north of the Some NATO nations, typically those who had
Mediterranean. In the present day, Alaska, while physi- colonies of their own, were sympathetic to these claims.
cally detached from the rest of the United States, is an Belgium and the Netherlands also still had a number of
integral part of America and not a colony in the true sense valuable colonies that they were not eager to give up.
of the word. Britain was in something of a middle position. In 1956,
Britain was still the largest colonial power in the world,
but it had already accepted the (troubled) independence
Focus of Debate of a number of its most important territories, including
India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Egypt, and Iraq.
Ghana, the first independent black African nation, had
become independent in March of 1956, just a few months
The French Perspective before our meeting begins.
In 1956, the broad concept of decolonization had
been accepted by most of the European nations, at least
The French had a number of arguments on their in principle. But exactly what decolonization meant was
side in this claim. Algiers and Paris are roughly equal by no means sure at the time. South Africa had become
distances from Marseilles, and, most importantly, there independent in 1910, but in a manner that concentrated all
was an enormous population of French descendents in power and wealth in the hands of the white minority, who,
Algeria. These people, called colons, not only could vote like the colons of Algeria, considered themselves the right-
in French elections but also on a number of occasions ful owners of the country.
almost started civil war in France and eventually forced
the writing of a new constitution. They were so deter- The Role of Labels
mined because they knew that, with good reason, they
would not be welcome in Algeria were native Algerians
ever to rule the country. Labels played a major part in this conflict, as they
As far as the government was concerned, the have in essentially every debate in the modern world. In a
Alaska model was the appropriate understanding of Alge- debate that has been played out again and again, the FLN
ria, and they considered the FLN to be nothing more than declared themselves to be freedom fighters, while the
extremists with no real support in the population. Through- French branded them terrorists. Indeed, the FLN killed
out the colonial era the French held a different view of thousands of innocent civilians, many in bomb attacks
their colonies than other nations. Other countries simply against specifically civilian targets such as cafés. The
saw the colonies as existing for the benefit of the mother French were willing to consider some varieties of self-
country, as sources of manpower, markets, raw materials, government for Algeria, but only South Africa-style mod-
and prestige. The French, on the other hand, had been, els that would have left the the European colonists safe in
ever since the French Revolution, concerned with spread- Algeria and with a significant concentration of power.
5
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Suez Crisis
France Faces Opposition from Non-colonial rule. The dynastic viceroys of Egypt behaved essentially
Powers as independent monarchs but did not in any way repre-
sent the native Egyptian population.
As with every global issue from this era, the Al- Britain and France Gain Control
gerian struggle for independence cannot be understood
fully except in the context of the Cold War. The newly
decolonized nations became immediate Cold War battle- The viceroy ran into financial difficulties soon
grounds as each superpower sought to influence the new afterwards and sold his majority shares in the Canal to
leadership. The USSR supported many colonial liberation Great Britain, for which the Canal was of immense impor-
movements. Even before winning independence, the FLN tance as the shortest sea route from Great Britain to India.
began using Socialist rhetoric when describing its plans This sale created a situation in which the British and French
for the nation. The Soviet Union positioned itself as the governments controlled Egypt’s main commercial resource.
champion of oppressed peoples everywhere, and lent con- To make matters worse, 25,000 Egyptian laborers are esti-
siderable moral and political support to the FLN through- mated to have died during the construction. However, the
out the struggle. To justify its refusal to leave, France late 19th century was the heyday of colonialism, and the
argued that an independent Algeria would become a So- situation was not thought to be incongruous at all. A few
viet ally. However, the United States and the other NATO years later, in 1882, British troops landed at the invitation
nations that did not have colonies used the Soviet issue of the Khedive (the viceroy of Egypt) to quash a minor
to argue for Algerian independence. revolt. The British, in the fashion of the times, crushed
To the non-colonial powers, France’s bloody re- the uprising as the Khedive had requested and then
pression of Algerian nationalism only played into the hands promptly took over the country. Egypt was granted offi-
of the Soviets by giving them easy material with which to cial independence in 1922, but British troops remained in
paint all the capitalist nations as tyrannical imperialists. the country until 1952.
Furthermore, the conflict tied down much of France’s armed
forces, troops that the other NATO nations wanted to be The Pan-Arab Movement
able to call upon in the event of a war with the Soviets. De
Gaulle, who came to power during the Algerian convul-
sions, was vehement about France being independent of Egyptian troops participated along with the rest
America and NATO; he often threatened to stop cooper- of the Arab world in the 1948-9 war that erupted after Is-
ating with the alliance and tried to build his own sphere of rael declared independence. The embarrassing defeat of
influence in the developing world. the Egyptian and other Arab armies in that war led to con-
siderable popular discontent throughout the Arab world,
but particularly in Egypt. The monarchy was viewed as
corrupt, decadent, and backward. Furthermore, the idea
SUEZ CRISIS of pan-Arabism swept the Middle East. This was the idea
that the division of the Arab world into a multitude of
states was the illegitimate contrivance of the former colo-
nial occupiers. Instead, all Arabs rightfully made up one
nation. Reformers blamed this division for the defeat in
History and Background the war against Israel. Pan-Arab leaders in various coun-
tries promised to unify the Arab world, raise the masses
from their abject poverty, and defeat Israel in a new war.
The Suez Canal, located in Egypt, shortens the Nasser Comes to Power
sea route between Europe and Asia by thousands of kilo-
meters by linking the Red and Mediterranean Seas. As a
result, it is one of the world’s most important shipping The most famous of these leaders was Gamel
routes. The Canal was completed in 1869. Its construc- Abdel Nasser, a commander in the Egyptian army. In 1952,
tion was financed by the French and Egyptian govern- Nasser led a coup that overthrew the pro-Western gov-
ments. At this time, Egypt was nominally under Turkish ernment of King Farouk, the last of the dynasty that had
6
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Suez Crisis
included the viceroy who sold the shares of the Canal to was not so distracted by events in Hungary that it couldn’t
the British. British troops were forced to leave Egypt come to its Egypt’s aid. The Soviets began making threat-
soon after. Nasser established himself as a leader not ening statements and rushed supplies and advisors to
only in Egypt but also throughout the Arab world, where Egypt. The United States also decided that the war against
he positioned himself as the fount of anti-colonialism, Egypt had become unacceptable and used economic pres-
modernity, pan-Arabism, and “Arab socialism”. Despite sure to force Britain to back down. With the British out of
being involved with the Non-Aligned Movement, Nasser’s the game, the French threw in the towel. Then the Israelis,
Egypt came more into the Soviet orbit as the early 1950s though they won every engagement against Egypt, found
progressed. By 1956, the Egyptian army was fully themselves without a friend in the United Nations and
equipped, trained, and advised by Moscow. were forced to withdraw from Egypt under tremendous
international pressure. Nasser’s nationalization of the
Canal was not reversed although he was induced to agree
in principle to freedom of movement for foreign ships
through the Canal.
Recent Developments
A Shift in the World Order
Nasser Nationalizes the Canal Many observers see the Suez Crisis as marking
the final eclipse of the Western European great powers,
Britain and France, in favor of the US and the USSR. It
In mid-1956, Nasser declared the nationalization showed that, even though Britain and France had the mili-
of the Suez Canal in response to a withdrawal of Western tary potential to easily defeat Egypt, the economic and
aid because of his close links with the Soviet Union. Until political situation of the world precluded this as a viable
that time the Canal had been run as the property of the option.
Suez Canal Company, which in turn was controlled by the
governments of Britain and France. Britain and France
were furious, threats and accusations began to fly from Focus of Debate
both sides, and war seemed likely from the beginning. To
further complicate the sitaution, Egypt and Israel remained
implacably hostile. Israel was infuriated that Egypt had
aided raids into its territory by Palestinian guerillas since Britain and France
the end of the last war. Israel retaliated with a raid into
Gaza that killed more than forty Egyptian soldiers.
In the debate within NATO that the conflict cre-
Israel, France, and Britain Respond ated, Britain and France tried to frame the issue in terms of
a Soviet client state (Egypt) attacking their vital interests.
The worldview of many leaders within NATO in 1956 was
In the summer of 1956, representatives of Israel, highly Manichean: the world was seen as sharply divided
France, and Britain met in secret near Paris and agreed on between radical good and radical evil, and even the slight-
a plan. Israel would invade Egypt, seizing the Gaza Strip, est advance of the evil Soviet empire could throw the en-
the Sinai Peninsula, and the Suez Canal, and Britain and tire world into their hands. It was not hard to argue that
France would attack Egypt by sea and air in support. Egypt control of the Suez Canal was vital in geopolitical terms.
would then be forced to ask for a cease-fire, and Britain Although it later became clear that the view of Nasser as
and France would send “peacekeeping” troops into the an obedient Soviet puppet was overstated, the national-
Canal Zone, separating the combatants and re-establish- ization of the Canal did legitimately raise the possibility
ing European control over the Canal in the process. As that in the future Moscow would be able to close and
planned, Israel invaded Egypt on October 29, and Britain open it on a whim. Britain and France in particular de-
and France began bombing Egyptian targets. Within three spised Nasser, who supported the FLN and other anti-
days, Israeli forces approached the Canal. Egypt may colonial movements and was, in their view, a constant
have been weak, but it had the support of the USSR, which threat to the stability of the region.
7
Harvard Model Congress Europe 1956
Historical NATO: Suez Crisis