Historically, the United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) have been known to disagree due to opposing ideological viewpoints. These ideological divisions have an enormous impact on politics since both these member states tend to have opposing viewpoints, which they are unwilling to concede.
After a heated debate, the IMUN Press team decided to interview the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as they have opposing viewpoints regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the debate, Cuba contended that the government required foreign aid, such as that provided by the USSR, to maintain its sovereignty. This is due to the threat the US presents to their country, which puts pressure on Cuba to develop a nuclear arsenal as a precautionary measure. This interview will compare the Cuban Missile Crisis from distinct perspectives, such as the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' outlook.
What would be your ideal resolution regarding the topic?
USSR: “Well, considering my position as the USSR, my ideal position would be that the US would let me station my missiles and military in Cuba while the US demilitarizes itself in Turkey. That would be my ideal resolution.”
US: “Well, my ideal resolution is in the currently debated resolution, demilitarizing Cuba and probably denuclearizing other parts of the world.”
Who were the members that supported or shared your point of view?
USSR: “I would not say any member state supported my view entirely, simply because the USSR’s view is quite a far-out view. However, I did have the support of Ghana and Romania. They were my closest allies in the conference.”
US: “Other members of P5 supported my view, including the Republic of China, France, and the United Kingdom. Member states such as the United Arab Republic, and Venezuela are also my close allies.”
How do you think your contribution helped in reaching a consensus?
USSR: “So far, the U.S.S.R. has contributed to overall consensus. I am representing my members state in that sense, I consider the policies were harming the consensus. However, I do hope that there will be more contributions that hopefully lead to consensus tomorrow.”
US: “Well, my contribution so far has been the main clause that has resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. We, both the USSR and the US, amended a clause that removed nuclear missiles from Cuba in return for avoiding U.S. invasion of Cuba. There were also further discussions on the removals of other missiles. That was a big contribution to reach a consensus this far.”
How do you think that your point of view might have been an obstacle in achieving a consensus?
USSR: “The USSR policies create obstacles. It has just been so hard-lined; getting delegates to agree with it is hard. For example, we had a clause regarding an investigation into the invasion. Well, my country’s policy is simply unacceptable to the US and its allies, as they hold the majority in the P5. It is difficult for my country to reach a consensus.”
US: “Most of the nations are on my side of the issue, and we agree that we have made possible contributions for the resolution. Therefore, I do not see the US as an obstacle in achieving a consensus.”
Are there nuclear weapons in Cuba or not? Is there evidence for this claim?
USSR: “There were nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba during the period set for the historical security council. But as the USSR delegate, I don’t believe there were nuclear weapons in Cuba. However, there could be an imminent threat to the US.”
US: “There are capable nuclear missiles, which planes have detected from the US while surveilling Cuba, can reach to Hudson, Canada and Lima, Peru. These are serious threats to America as a whole.”
As observed by the collective interview on the United States and the USSR, both these member states have opposing viewpoints, which can be destabilizing when discussing the Cuban Missile crisis with the whole Historical Council.