Introduction November The Paris Peace Conference opens up their doors for discussion between the world countries.

Transcription

1 Name Date Model UN: Plan for the Post- WWI World Introduction November The Paris Peace Conference opens up their doors for discussion between the world countries. In November of 1919, the Paris Peace Conference was the meeting of Allied victors, following the end of World War I to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers following the armistices of It took place in Paris during 1919 and involved diplomats from more than 32 countries and nationalities. The decisions formed through the informal meetings of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando, who would meet together informally 145 times, would in turn by ratified by the other countries at the conference. For the purpose of this simulation the following countries will be taking part in the Paris Peace Conference: United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany (not present at the actual conference), Austria-Hungary (not present at the actual conference), the Ottoman Empire (not present at the actual conference), Greece, Japan, China, and Serbia. Your Task: Plan for the Post-WWI World The year is You are delegates of the Paris Peace Conference representing various nations of the world, and it has fallen to you to decide the fate and future of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the colonies located around the world in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. In order to do this, you must (1) identify the various problems, issues, and considerations relating to the conflicting needs and desires of different groups in each area, and then (2) develop a plan for the future of the territory, considering how it would be best maintained to keep the peace in the post-wwi world. The Rules We will discuss the issue in the form of a moderated caucus (structured discussion), which means that each country will be permitted to speak and share its views by raising its placard and being selected to speak by the Chair (teacher). You will have a max of 30 seconds to speak each time, but may speak for less by saying I yield my time to the Chair. During the discussion, use the space below to take notes on the problems and the solutions that you think are most important. As you share your views in discussion, look for other countries that agree with you. After the moderated caucus is over, we will have a five-minute unmoderated caucus (free discussion/meeting time) when you can group together with likeminded countries to write up your official plan to be presented for a vote.

2 Problems/Issues/Considerations Solutions/Proposals

3 Paris Peace Conference Resolution #1 Sponsor (Leader of this Bloc): Signatories (Other Supporters): Preambulatory Clauses Problems/Issues/Considerations Operative Clauses Solutions/Proposals

4 Paris Peace Conference Resolution #2 Sponsor (Leader of this Bloc): Signatories (Other Supporters): Preambulatory Clauses Problems/Issues/Considerations Operative Clauses Solutions/Proposals

5 Paris Peace Conference Resolution #3 Sponsor (Leader of this Bloc): Signatories (Other Supporters): Preambulatory Clauses Problems/Issues/Considerations Operative Clauses Solutions/Proposals

6 Recommendations and Questions To Ask The delegates of this committee are expected to provide recommendations on how to best deal with the issue to the General Assembly. Each of the seven recommendations (as read below) are areas that are extremely critical to the topic and should be addressed as such. However delegates are encouraged to include others if they believe they are important aspects to the problem. Cooperation and consensus are immensely important. A general breakdown of the different recommendations given to the Supreme Council that may be helpful. 1) Allow Germany to maintain its current size but have them pay a severe fine Germany should be allowed to maintain their current borders and colonies but be forced to pay a fine for all the damage they caused in World War I. 2) Reduce Germany and force strict penalties upon them Germany should be reduced to the smallest country it can possibly be, have limitations placed on their military, be forced to accept the blame for causing WWI and pay strict fines for the war damages. 3) Germany should be entered into the League of Nations where it s monitored by others Germany should be forced to give up their colonies and have their military reduced but be monitored by other European countries until it is ready to run their country independently. 4) Colonies should remain as colonies/mandates for the mother country Colonies should remain in the hands of the mother countries that control them to do as they please (possibly give independence when they see fit) 5) Colonies should be given independence Colonies should automatically gain their independence from their mother country. 6) Empires should be broken up and nationalities should be given independence Empires such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire should be broken up and new countries representing the nationalities there should be installed. Questions to Consider 1) What are the exact claims of each group? Why will it be hard to appease everyone? a. Delegates are encouraged to reevaluate the causes of the conflict and form their own opinion. Understanding the root of the problem is the first step to being able to solve it. 2) Why would Europeans utilize to the victor go the spoils mentality? a. Delegates should use their knowledge of what transpired during the actual Paris Peace Conference to help guide them in this matter. They should use their understanding of nationalistic rivalries and alliances and use that as an example. 3) How could the Paris Peace Conference compromise to make sure all groups are left satisfied (or at least satisfied on the side of the victors)? 4) In relation to your country what side of the disagreement would you be on and what could the benefit of the potential circumstance be to your country?

7 Model UN Rubric Category Excellent (4 points) Adequate (3 points) Fair (2 points) Weak (1 point) Opening Statements Evidence & Clarity Diplomacy Presentation Skills Partner Teamwork Engages the audience and clearly demonstrates what their position is. Positions and questions to others are stated clearly. It was easy to understand the point that a delegate was trying to make. Statements were logical and succinct. All delegates were professional and considerate in their interactions. Even when negotiating they maintained a tone of respect. They were welcoming and on the lookout for a common ground. Delegates spoke loudly, in a convincing tone, using good body language while making eye contact with fellow delegates. Delegates were clearly a team. Partners shared speaking time. They worked together to design resolutions and always seemed to be on the same page Score (out of 25) : /25 Overall Score: /100 Comments: Aware of the audience and states their position but it is not overly persuasive. Details are accurate and research evidence demonstrates a good understanding. Statements might be prolonged rather than succinct OR student does not get their point across in the required time Delegates were professional and considerate when speaking, but towards others may have displayed an attitude and was critical of the ideas and positions of others. Delegates spoke in a loud tone but it was not always convincing. Tried to use body language and maintain eye contact the entire time. Delegates showed teamwork through shared work in creation of the statements & plans. One partner tried to speak more than the other to bring up points their partner missed. Aware of audience but opening statements are unclear as to what they are trying to prove There are few details given and details are unsatisfactory showing a limited understanding of the topic. Delegates were dismissive while others were speaking or speaking with a general attitude towards others. Delegates showed no understanding on how to compromise on their position. Delegates fidgeted and did not make eye contact. Delegates preferred to speak in a hushed tone which made it hard to understand. Delegates did not seem to be on the same page as their positions sometimes differed and one partner seemed to take more of an ownership with regards to ALL parts of the work. Unaware of the audience does not make it known what the position is. Positions are often confusing or contradictory. Students either spoke for too long a time without really saying a clear idea or for too short a time as to be understood. At times, delegates were rude or dismissive in their tone or body language. At times, negotiations took on a hostile or personal tone. Delegates fidgeted or used body language in a way that was distracting to the listener. They did not make eye contact with their fellow delegates. Their tone was unconvincing. There was clearly one dominant partner. Partners seemed to work independently or even against each other at times. Partners seemed confused by their position and even presented conflicting ideas.

8 Opening Statement Slip Name(s) of Group Members: Country: What is your plan and how will you go about it? We, your country, Opening Statement Slip Name(s) of Group Members: Country: What is your plan and how will you go about it? We, your country, Opening Statement Slip Name(s) of Group Members: Country: What is your plan and how will you go about it? We, your country,

9 Names: Exit Slip Overall, was the Paris Peace Conference successful? Do you think Germany was treated too harshly? Did France and Britain let their desires clout their judgment? Explain in depth after briefly discussing with your partners. Names: Exit Slip Overall, was the Paris Peace Conference successful? Do you think Germany was treated too harshly? Did France and Britain let their desires clout their judgment? Explain in depth after briefly discussing with your partners.