Download Background Guide

NUMUN XIV • 2
Introduction
Delegates, welcome to the Treaty of Versailles Committee. We come together today to find a
solution not only to the “German Question,” but also to address the state of the globe as each of
our nations remembers the sacrifices made and moves into the future lying before us. Specifically,
we ask today that you consider the institutional framework for our world in the aftermath of the
Great War.
Just as armistice does not solve the “German Question,” neither does it address the way the
world shall or ought to function as we move beyond the hostilities. Your task today is to decide
what role institutions will play in this new, post-war world. It is clear that change is necessary – the
opinion of the majority holds that the institutions of our past have failed us. It falls to you, delegates,
to decide what changes must be made. Does the framework necessitate only small tweaks to
function properly? Or must we overhaul the system in its entirety? Furthermore, you must consider
exactly what the function of these institutions will be. It is our goal to prevent another global crisis
from occurring. What does “proper function” look like in the institutions you envision? What
exactly will these institutions do to prevent another war of the likes we have just dealt with?
Ten months prior to the signing of the armistice, President Wilson of the United States gave
a speech detailing what he saw as the fourteen conditions necessary for world peace. You may
choose to see these as a starting point for institutional overhaul, or you may believe that a League of
Nations as President Wilson envisioned it is not the right answer for our world at this time in
history. Whatever your decision regarding the global institutional framework and the League of
Nations in particular, as a representative of your individual country you must remember to keep the
particular interests of your nation forefront in your mind. What institutions, or what parts of the
conceived League of Nations, would either benefit or harm your country and its interests?
NUMUN XIV • 3
Background
Prior to the outbreak of the Great War, Europe was not wholly barren of institutions. The
definition of an institution in political science is “a set of formal rules, informal norms, or shared
understandings that constrain […] political actors’ interactions with one another.” 1 While the
European landscape before 1914 had a select number of institutions already in place, these
institutions did not serve the globe in the way they ought to have done to prevent World War I.
The leading political institution up until the outbreak of WWI was the Concert of Europe,
also known as the “Congress System.”2 Just as the definition of institutions states, the Concert of
Europe was an agreement among the leading powers that in the event of a crisis they would attempt
to resolve the situation peacefully through mediation amongst their ambassadors. The Concert was
far from a fixed entity, and was primarily “a face-saving device.”3 Notably, the Concert lacked a
secretariat and also neglected to follow any specific rules of conduct; nevertheless, its achievements
included securing Greek independence in 1830 and Belgian independence in 1831, as well as ending
an 8-year Egyptian occupation of Syria in 1840. As well, despite being the catalyst for the creation of
the Concert, France was integrated back into Europe in 1818 when it joined the alliance. Its
achievements, of course, were all made in the interests of the ruling European nations at the time, and
thus the largest international institution in existence prior to World War One answered only to the
whims of the European powers and not to the colonized nor to those states that were not
European.4
1. Sharon Gilad, “Institution,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 28 December 2015, accessed 16 January 2017,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/institution
2. “Concert of Europe,” New World Encyclopedia, accessed 16 January 2017,
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Concert_of_Europe
3. David Stevenson, “Europe Before 1914,” British Library Online, accessed 8 December 2016,
https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/europe-before-1914
4. “Concert of Europe.”
NUMUN XIV • 4
Both the global context and the European context within which the Concert of Europe
operated prior to the outbreak of the Great War were equally important. Politically, alongside the
Concert, the landscape was very realist in its focus on power and the sovereignty of each nation in
its actions. Prior to the First World War, peace depended largely upon what political scientists term a
“balance of power.” 5 After the Napoleonic wars in Europe came to an end, the British were
particularly invested in balancing European powers – this meant that they sought firstly to establish
an even distribution of military might amongst the European states so that no one state (like France
during the Napoleonic wars could dominate the others.
The second part of a “balance of power” theory is that, in the event that one nation does
become power-hungry and attempts to take advantage of its military strength to attack, the others
will form a “balancing” coalition to take down the rogue state.6 Power balancing usually went handin-hand with a strategy of deterrence, or attempting to discourage other actors from making any
hostile movements in the first place. The Concert of Europe was born of this desire to balance
power in Europe after the Napoleonic wars.7
The pre-WWI economic context was one of globalization due to increases in world trade,
and Europe accounted for an inordinately large amount of this trade. Europe also accounted for a
great deal of the global investments occurring at the time, and many European currencies were fixed
in relation to one another. Another important feature of the both the political and social context at
the time was an increasing trend towards democratization amongst the major European powers,
which contrasted sharply with the strongly institutionalized monarchies in Austria-Hungary,
51-64.
5. Stevenson, “Europe Before 1914.”
6. A.F. Pollard, “The Balance of Power,” Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs 2, No. 2 (1923): pp.
7. Richard B. Elrod, “The Concert of Europe: A Fresh Look at an International System,” World Politics 28, No.
2 (1976): pp. 159-74.
NUMUN XIV • 5
Germany, and Russia.8 These regime trends were already on their way to increasing international
tensions. Current Situation
Faith in Institutions Weakened
Prior to the Great War, most European economic institutions – monarchies aside – had
gone largely unquestioned. It was only in the aftermath of the Great War that leaders and
populations alike began to question what it was that led their countries to war, and some of the
blame came to rest on the shoulders of Europe’s existing political and economic institutions.
Europeans no longer trusted the institutions that they saw as partly responsible for the Great War.
This led to formulation of the concept of the League of Nations, which was designed to eradicate
the institutional problems of the past and prevent world war of the same scale from ever occurring
again.
War had marked the Concert of Europe as weak, and the failure of the economic institutions
of old was underlined when European wealth was proven to be a casualty of the war as well. The
Habsburg Empire was well on its way to falling by 1914;9 the new republic was extremely shaky in
the aftermath. Perhaps more importantly, there was a sincere lack of communication and
coordinated action among countries like Austria-Hungary and Russia, due to the “lone wolf” actions
of their respective foreign ministers. In fact, at the start of the Great War in 1914, the Triple Alliance
was plagued by even greater internal tension than its opponents suffered.10 This only added to the
belief that an institutional failure was responsible for the Great War, as there was no means of
8. Stevenson, “Europe Before 1914.”
9. Alan Sked, “Historians, the Nationality Question, and the Downfall of the Habsburg Empire,” Transactions of
the Royal Historical Society 31 (1981): 191.
10. “Triple Alliance.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 29 December 2014. Accessed 21 December 2016.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Triple-Alliance-Europe-1882-1915; Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., “The Way to War,”
1914-1918 Online International Encyclopedia of the First World War, accessed 21 December 2016, http://encyclopedia.19141918-online.net/article/the_way_to_war
NUMUN XIV • 6
effectively regulating open and clear communication between nations. Wilson saw his “new
diplomacy” as countering the subversive secret treaties that drew signatories into the Great War, like
that of the Triple Alliance, and thus preventing future warfare.11
An even greater source of global social upheaval was the turnover of world powers. Britain’s
empire and global influence decreased vastly, while the US’s territorial separation from most of the
fighting meant that its infrastructure was unharmed, its economy was booming, and it had suffered
much fewer casualties. Another result of the Great War was the transfer of thousands of colonized
soldiers to Europe to fight, and their ensuing recognition that the white colonial powers oppressing
them were not in fact omnipotent but were in reality embroiled in tumultuous conflict. Suddenly, it
seemed much more feasible to want and demand more than what the colonial powers allocated;12
with that, the great empires of the past were left stumbling on shaky ground as the seat of much of
their power began to shift.
Conception of the League of Nations
The idea of an intergovernmental body has been considered as far back as The
Enlightenment, when Immanuel Kant proposed a league of nations. The Concert of Europe itself,
failing as it is in our current time, had in its own turn served as a trial form of international
cooperation following the Congress of Vienna. The Concert was the first instance of a body of
nations with a common goal. This idea was again reiterated by Theodore Roosevelt, who said, “It
would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent upon peace would form a League of
Peace.”13
11. “Woodrow Wilson: Foreign Affairs.” Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Accessed 21
December 2016. http://millercenter.org/president/biography/wilson-foreign-affairs#contributor
12. Adam Hochschild, “Global Leadership: How WWI Helped Unravel the British Empire,” The Wall Street
Journal Online, 20 June 2014, Accessed 16 December 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-world-war-i-helpedunravel-the-british-empire-1403299955
13. Theodore Roosevelt, “Nobel Lecture 5 May 1910: International Peace,” Nobelprize.org, accessed 27
November 2016, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1906/roosevelt-lecture.html
NUMUN XIV • 7
In his Fourteen Points, Woodrow Wilson calls for the creation of a “League of Nations,”
saying, “a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of
affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small
states alike.”14
Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points outlined the liberal vision of what steps were necessary
to prevent large-scale war in the future. As part of the basis for international cooperation, some of
the most pertinent points the US president argued for included a right to national selfdetermination, the concept of paving the way for the spread of democracy worldwide, and the
creation of the League of Nations.15 Wilson was already somewhat of a hero upon arrival in Europe
for the Paris Peace Conference and discussions over the Treaty of Versailles.16 His European
supporters believed strongly in the world vision Wilson expressed in the Fourteen Points, and
wanted to see this global collaboration to prevent future wars come to fruition. In tandem, many
Germans expect to see a compromise similar to that of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, as pamphlets
containing this speech were dispersed by Allied planes.
The League of Nations as Wilson conceived of would include four “core” institutions: the
ruling secretariat, the council of ministers, the parliamentary assembly, and the court of justice.17
Wilson’s conviction was that the League of Nations would help spur the globe into a “new era of
world peace” through an institutional reform of international relations. This was very much in
keeping with the president’s liberal “Wilsonian moral diplomacy.”18
14. “8 January 1918: President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.” The Avalon Project: Yale Law School.
Accessed 10 December 2016. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
15. Ibid.
16. “League of Nations.” The President Woodrow Wilson House. Accessed 21 December 2016.
http://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/league-nations
17. Christopher Booker, “How the First World War Inspired the EU.” Spectator.co.uk. 8 February 2014.
Accessed 21 December 2016. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/how-the-first-world-war-inspired-the-eu/
18. “Woodrow Wilson: Foreign Affairs.” Accessed 21 December 2016.
NUMUN XIV • 8
From its conception onwards, the League faced many challenges. It was opposed not only
by those abroad, but also by those within the US government itself who vehemently disagreed with
what President Wilson proposed. The most prominent voice of discord was that of Senate
Republican Henry Cabot Lodge.19 Cabot Lodge was far from the only member of the US Senate
who shied away from joining the League of Nations; concerns centered on potential loss of US
sovereignty, and a fear of the responsibility that would come with the US potentially falling into the
role of “policeman of the globe” under the League.20
Ongoing Conflicts and Postwar Institutional Power While most of Wilson’s Fourteen Points summarizes his vision for a peaceful and united
world, it did not provide a framework for resolving ongoing conflicts in a way that would satisfy
everyone involved.21 Irish nationalists, sick of British colonialism, demanded Home Rule but were
denied a voice in the wartime parliamentary coalition. After the war, these Irish nationalists set up
their own government in defiance of London while the parliamentary coalition continued to oppose
independence, particularly in Ulster.22 The British Prime Minister in 1919, David Lloyd George, tried
to resolve the Home Rule conflict by negotiation. Although he gave some concessions to the
Unionists, he was unable to find common ground between the moderate Irish Parliamentary Party
19. “America in the First World War: The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations.” USHistory.org.
Accessed 21 December 2016. http://www.ushistory.org/us/45d.asp
20. “League of Nations.” Accessed 21 December 2016.
21. Woodrow Wilson, “President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points,” Lillian Goldman Law Library, January 8
1918, accessed November 28, 2016, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
22. D. M. Leeson, “Post-War Conflict (Great Britain and Ireland),” International Encyclopedia of the First World
War, January 27 2016, accessed January 9, 2017, http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/postwar_conflict_great_britain_and_ireland
NUMUN XIV • 9
and Parliament.23 The British public in the election of 1918 supported the pro-union coalition and
stifled the process of negotiating an end to conflict between the Irish and the rest of the UK.24 Like the Irish, many people across Africa desired Wilsonian self-determination and an end to
rule by foreigners. After the war, the victors divided Germany’s colonial states and sought to expel
the ethnic Germans living there. In South Africa, the government there sought to protect Namibian
Germans against the orders of London. However, the British and French disagreed. They roundly
ignored the demands of these colonized people and effectively considered them spoils of war, a
reward for the loss of millions of European lives in the war. Their attitude sharply contrasted with
Wilson’s idealistic goals; he wanted self-determination and home rule for as many people as possible.
While the British and French agreed with him on removing Germany’s and the Ottomans’ colonies,
they differed in who should rule over these newly freed lands. The British and French also derived
huge colonial markets and other benefits from the maintenance of colonial empire. As victors, they
were unwilling to diminish their own power and allow others to rise.25 Bloc Positions
Although the United States is responsible for proposing the key institution, the League of
Nations, at the peace conference, it can hardly be said that President Wilson has total support for it.
Conservative forces in the US Senate are moving to oppose such an international body. Every
country, not just the United States, will arrive at the Paris Peace Conference dealing with varying
levels of internal dissent, and no delegation has a simple, single agenda. Although some states are
23. Erica S. Doherty, “1916 Lloyd George Negotiations,” Irish History Life: School of History and Anthropology,
Queen’s University, Belfast, January 23 2017,
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Shortarticlesandencyclopaediaentries/Encyclopaedi
a/LengthyEntries/1916LlyodGeorgeNegotiations/
24. Authaler, Caroline; Michels, Stefanie, “Post-war Colonial Administration (Africa),” International Encyclopedia
of the First World War, January 23 2017, http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/postwar_colonial_administration_africa
25. Kitchen, James E. “Colonial Empires after the War/Decolonization” International Encyclopedia of the First
World War, January 23 2017, http://encyclopedia.1914-1918online.net/article/colonial_empires_after_the_wardecolonization
NUMUN XIV • 10
clearly aligned in a pro-League or anti-League position, the decision they eventually make may
ultimately inflame domestic tensions.
Pro-League of Nations
Though all countries present at the Paris Peace Conference have a vested interest in global
peace after the horrors wrought by the Great War, those in favor of the creation of the League of
Nations believe that the way to go about achieving this desired peace is through liberal engagement
and continued international presence for their country in the global arena.
From a standpoint purely of policy, these nations favor creating the League of Nations as
the centerpiece of a new international system. However, they do not stop at simply favoring the
League. This bloc of nations is intent on pursuing greater openings for global cooperation and
communication, regardless of how or when. Even if the League is defeated, this bloc is intent on
finding a way to promote their ideals in other ways. If the League is approved, nations in this bloc
will likely take it as a sign that a new era of international cooperation is dawning, and push for even
stronger and expansive institutions the compliment the new international body.
These nations also tend to take more liberal viewpoints on the various issues that may or
may not concern the league. In this case, liberal is broadly defined as being concerned with human
rights, liberty, and self-determination. The Versailles Conference is meant to remake the world after
the most destructive war in history, and within this bloc, there is a shared viewpoint that the world is
ready to be remade in a new, possibly even radical image.
This bloc is also generally united by their support of US President Woodrow Wilson.
Although Wilson is fairly popular at home, his 14 points have made him a savior to people seeking
an end to colonialism and Empire, and his embrace of the nation-state has given hope to stateless
minority populations in central and eastern Europe. In addition, Wilson is looked at favorably by the
peoples of defeated countries, who see him as a protector of their sovereignty. The treaty of Brest-
NUMUN XIV • 11
Litovsk, signed between Germany and the USSR, has rendered Eastern Europe particularly open
and receptive to Wilsonian principles. With Germany defeated, and the Russians fighting a bloody
civil war, Eastern Europe has been made available as the site for potential creation of several new
states.
Anti-League of Nations
Those who disagreed with the formation of the League of Nations in no way sought to bring
about a second World War. Rather, (hopefully) lasting peace was the ends agreed upon by all of the
countries in attendance at the Paris Peace Conference, only those present happened to disagree on
the exact means that would be used to achieve this. Those who opposed the League were more
conservative in their political leanings, which inclined them towards being isolationist – this meant
that countries who did not want the League to be created also did not want to play a prominent role
in global affairs going forward. They wanted instead to prevent further warfare by keeping their
heads down and focus on the interests of their nation alone.
A big part of this isolationist stance is an opposition to the League of Nations. Rather than
seeing the league proposal as a move towards global peace, nations in this bloc are fearful that any
sort of global government will overstep its bounds and meddle in their nation’s individual, internal
affairs. There is also concern that a more closely connected world will only yield more conflict and
less cooperation. States that oppose the League of Nations will not only fight its creation, but may
also choose not to join if it is put into place.
As isolationism is closely related to conservatism, in this case it also means a return to order.
The Great War has upended the previous global system, but that system had managed to solve
disputes with some measure of success, and keep tensions in check for years before. Delegations
that represent multi-ethnic or colonial Empires, states whose existence contradicts Wilsonian
NUMUN XIV • 12
principles, will be especially vigorous in making sure that ideas like self-determination and nation
states do not surface, and that their system of government is preserved.
In the US, this opposition bloc is led by Henry Cabot Lodge, largely due to his trepidation
concerning Article X of the Covenant, which requires members of the League to defend other
League members (signatory states) from any outside aggression. Although this article is meant to
deter armed conflict, Lodge worries that this requirement will simply draw Americans into bloody
foreign wars they have no interest in. In nations that oppose the League, this concern is one of the
main reasons for their choice to take a stand against the organization.
Questions to Consider
1. What influence does your state’s current domestic conditions have on its capacity and desire
to institution build following the end of WWI?
2. Did the pre-WWI institutions help or harm your state during the war - economically,
politically, etc.? How so?
3. As a delegation representing your nation, what is your view of U.S. President Wilson’s
suggested League of Nations? Do you believe it will help or harm your state’s interests?
4. Did your nation see the benefit of the Concert of Europe as a balance of power?
5. If your country were to draw up its own “Fourteen Points”, calibrated to its particular
interests, what would it look like? What steps does your nation see as necessary for the
prevention of future wars?
6. Does your country have any institutions or practises that would be directly at stake if a
League of Nations was created?
7. What was the regime type (democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, etc.) in your country prior
to the outbreak of WWI?
8. What does the regime type in your country look like currently, after the war? How does this
impact your nation’s interests and decisions regarding global cooperation?
9. Did your country take part in the Concert of Europe at any point in the Concert’s history?
10. What is your nation’s history of cooperation? Have you frequently collaborated on a global
scale, or do you frequently choose the path of the “lone wolf”?
11. If your country is pro-League of Nations, what factions within your country – either political
actors or interest groups or both – might be most opposed to your decision? Would this
have any ramifications for your government?
12. Regardless of your country’s convictions pro- or anti-League of Nations, if the committee
were to decide to go through with the creation of the League, what clauses in its covenant
would be necessary for you to agree to sign?
NUMUN XIV • 13
Recommended Sources
Ambrosius, Lloyd E. “Woodrow Wilson, Alliances, and the League of Nations.” The Journal of the
Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2006): pp. 139-65.
“8 January 1918: President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.” The Avalon Project: Yale Law
School. Accessed 10 December 2016.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
Chance, James and Nicholas X. Rizopoulos. “Toward a New Concert of Nations: An American
Perspective.” World Policy Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1999): pp. 2-10.
“Concert of Europe.” New World Encyclopedia. Accessed 16 January 2017.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Concert_of_Europe
Davies, Dr. Huw J. “The Concert of Europe: The Rise and Fall of the First United Nations.”
Defence-in-Depth, Research from King’s College London Defence Studies Department.
Accessed 17 January 2017. https://defenceindepth.co/2014/10/24/the-concert-of-europethe-rise-and-fall-of-the-first-united-nations/
Dokic, Dejan. “The Paris Peace Conference of 1919-1920: A Yugoslav Perspective.” Pescanik.net. 4
December 2010. http://pescanik.net/the-paris-peace-conference-of-1919-1920-a-yugoslavperspective/
Gwertzman, Bernard. “Why Did the United States Fail to Join the League of Nations?” Council on
Foreign Relations. 15 May 2013. http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-andalliances/why-did-united-states-fail-join-league-nations/p30709
“History of the League of Nations (1919-1946).” United Nations Office at Geneva Library, Registry,
Records and Archives Unit. Accessed 17 January 2017.
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/36BC4F83BD9E4443C1257AF30
04FC0AE/$file/Historical_overview_of_the_League_of_Nations.pdf
Sherwig, John M. “Lord Grenville’s Plan for a Concert of Europe, 1797-99.” The Journal of Modern
History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1962): pp. 284-93.
Soutou, Georges Henri. “Was There a European Order in the Twentieth Century? From the
Concert of Europe to the End of the Cold War.” Contemporary European History, Vol. 9, No. 3
(2000): pp. 329-53.
Stevenson, David. “Europe Before 1914.” British Library Online. Accessed 8 December 2016.
https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/europe-before-1914
Unterberger, Betty Miller. “The Treaty of Versailles: Carthaginian Peace or Pragmatic
Compromise?” Reviews in American History, Vol. 14, No. 3. Johns Hopkins University Press:
September 1986, pp. 398-404. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2702615.pdf
NUMUN XIV • 14
Bibliography
“8 January 1918: President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.” The Avalon Project: Yale Law
School. Accessed 10 December 2016.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp
“America in the First World War: The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations.”
USHistory.org. Accessed 21 December 2016. http://www.ushistory.org/us/45d.asp
Booker, Christopher. “How the First World War Inspired the EU.” Spectator.co.uk. 8 February 2014.
Accessed 21 December 2016. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/how-the-firstworld-war-inspired-the-eu/
Hochschild, Adam. “Global Leadership: How WWI Helped Unravel the British Empire.” The Wall
Street Journal Online. 20 June 2014. Accessed 16 December 2016.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-world-war-i-helped-unravel-the-british-empire1403299955
“League of Nations.” The President Woodrow Wilson House. Accessed 21 December 2016.
http://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/league-nations
Roosevelt, Theodore. “Nobel Lecture 5 May 1910: International Peace.” Nobelprize.org. Accessed 27
November 2016.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1906/roosevelt-lecture.html
Sked, Alan. “Historians, the Nationality Question, and the Downfall of the Habsburg Empire.”
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 31 (1981): 175-193.
Stevenson, David. “Europe Before 1914.” British Library Online. Accessed 8 December 2016.
https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/europe-before-1914
“Triple Alliance.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 29 December 2014. Accessed 21 December 2016.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Triple-Alliance-Europe-1882-1915
Williamson, Samuel R. Jr. “The Way to War.” 1914-1918 Online International Encyclopedia of the First
World War. Accessed 21 December 2016. http://encyclopedia.1914-1918online.net/article/the_way_to_war
“Woodrow Wilson: Foreign Affairs.” Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia.
Accessed 21 December 2016. http://millercenter.org/president/biography/wilson-foreignaffairs#contributor