Letter From The Dais
Annie Cheng, Director
Hello, my name is Annie Cheng and I’m a sophomore in Ezra Stiles College, objectively and subjectively the best residential college at Yale. I’m from Lakeland, Florida, about 50 minutes away from Disney (which I think is overrated). Within YIRA, I have chaired for SCSY and YMUN, and I am currently a director for Yale Model Government Europe (YMGE) and a member of the competitive Model UN team (MUNTY). Outside of YIRA, I am a staff writer at the Yale Daily News and a board member of the Yale Hunger and Homelessness Action Project (YHHAP). I am also a managing editor for The Yale Globalist, direct a community food rescue program, and appreciate every form of noodle.
I have always been passionate about this particular time in history, studying it in and outside of school. I find the Latin American revolutionary era to be promising, transformative, and overall symbolic of the power of the people. Communities are driven by the voice of the people, who serve as important actors in the political sphere from the guerilla groups to formal lobbyists. This transitional period is dramatic and telling of the Latin American spirit, but most critically it must be analyzed from a variety of perspectives. In selecting this crisis, I hope delegates will interrogate the often romanticized historical actions and ideologies of all actors, utilize creative strategy, and pursue crisis arcs from well-researched and dynamic points of view.
Delegates will be expected to express historical knowledge, individuality, innovation and overall wily behavior. Governments will be shattered, guerilla groups will be disbanded, and the idea of government will be transformed. What will you bring to the table?
Looking forward to seeing you all in debate,
Annie Cheng
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at annie.cheng@yale.edu.
Gabi Limon, Crisis Director
Hello and welcome to SCSY! My name is Gabi Limón, and I will be one of your committee directors at this year’s conference. I’m a sophomore History major from Santa Barbara, California, and outside of SCSY I’m also involved with Yale’s own MUN team, and its January on-campus conference. Though I was much more involved with journalism in high school, I’ve continued my reporting through two Yale publications, The Globalist and the Yale Review of International Studies. Outside of class and extracurriculars, I’m attempting to open a student-run coffee shop and working at Yale’s art gallery. I’m always happy to talk about any of these things, so feel free to reach out!
This topic guide will try to prepare you as much as possible to participate fully in committee. As the daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I’m so excited for us all to learn more about and debate this fascinating, important, and often sidelined piece of Hispanic/Latinx history.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me! We want to try to make this conference as accessible and the experience as smooth as possible for you, so that we can have an amazing few days this fall! My email is gabriella.limon@yale.edu. I look forward to meeting you all soon!
All best,
Gabi Limón
Hannah Lee, Moderator
Hello! My name is Hannah Lee, a sophomore in THE Ezra Stiles college, and I am studying Anthropology and Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry. I grew up in Daejeon, South Korea until I was 10, then spent my angsty teenage years in Columbus, Ohio. And now here I am in New Haven, meeting you!
At Yale, I research the T-Cell engineering at the School of Medicine, serve as the Community Chair for Korean American Students at Yale (KASY), and am the founder and Director of “Girls in Science” program at New Haven public schools.
Throughout this experience, I’m hopeful that we will understand Latin American history beyond the panethnic definition. We must question and affirm the vast differences, as well as the similarities, between the cultures, military, tactics, and governments of the nations and peoples we call “Latin American.” When we apply this in the context of guerilla wars, it will make our SCSY experiences all the more exciting and profound.
I hope you are ready to build your empire and tear others down--I can’t wait to see what will come of the wars and groups, how you will approach each crisis, and what you will create throughout this committee.
Please feel free to reach out to me at hannah.j.lee@yale.edu.
See you all soon!
Hannah Lee
Topic History
The great Latin American populism movement resulted from burgeoning economic change in the region, predominantly evident through urbanization and industrialization. Between the 1920s and 1950s, domestic industry boomed. After an economic stagnation, post-Great Depression kickstarted an economic approach of import substitution, a form of trade policy that involves re-emphasis on self-sufficiency by producing and consuming domestic goods rather than relying on foreign markets. Prior to the 1920s, most goods were exported for sale to the United States and Europe rather than produced and consumed domestically.
Governments invested in domestic industries and created more jobs in big-city factories, causing a wave of urbanization. Those in the countryside with largely agricultural backgrounds moved into the cities in waves, contributing to a region-wide population boom and establishing cities as seats of economic activity. Growth of industry resulted in an increase of wealth, at the time concentrated in the hands of those in power who owned and ran factories, including those operated by Multinational Corporations (MNC). The increased number of factory workers who overworked, underpaid, and not privy to the sudden influx of wealth unionized both informally and formally to demand a political shift: one that demanded inclusivity and equal representation for all, from the wealthy to the poor. Now that everyone was jostling elbows in the cities, inequalities became more and more apparent as the factory owners grew wealthier at the expense of the working class.
The working class consisted of people who had not previously participated in the political sphere, a fact noted by traditional populists such as the Argentine Juan Peron and Mexican Lazaro Cardenas. These populist leaders captured the hearts of an overworked and underpaid working class by denouncing the traditional wealthy elites and promising to implement social programs, including wage reform and social security. Known for their charisma and their technique of appealing to the desperate anger of the crowds, traditional populists received broad support. The charming leaders were also known for their strong sense of nationalism, reflective of the shift in economic markets and increasing anti-Americanism. Despite their charisma and big promises, little progress was made in improving economic inequalities in Latin America.
In the 1960s, attitudes changed as politics shifted from traditional populism to military conservatism. A growth in Marxism, Christian ideology, and military leadership resulted in a decrease of populist sentiments. Military regimes were supported by the American government financially and ideologically as part of the American quest to crush communism and all things populist and nationalist.
As the timeline grows closer to our 1970 opening date of the committee, many of the same problems have remained rampant and ever growing as the rich grow richer and the poor continue to suffer. Issues such as corruption, bribery, corporate-government alliances, violence, and appalling economic inequalities have driven a distrust between the various actors of Latin America. Each government and guerrilla group has its own interests but must also consider the competing interests of their neighbors, allies and enemies.
Current Situation
The Last Year
On May 29th, 1969, during the Cordobazo uprising, a police officer shot the activist and mechanic Maximo Mena. The Cordobazo was preceded by a series of strikes and civil insurrections in the cities of Tucuman and Cordoba, Argentina, which protested the military dictatorship, especially regarding the workers’ rights and the military’s economic decisions. As a result of the shooting, protests and riots escalated in many places in Argentina, and served as a catalyst in the formation of multiple armed groups against the dictatorship of Juan Carlos Ongania.
In November of 1969, Januario Valero, a former FARC zone commander, changed sides during a battle against the Colombian Maoist People’s Liberation Army (EPL) over territories. Valero left the FARC to join the EPL, which resulted in the FARC having to concede the Upper Sinu and San Jorge valleys to the EPL. In addition, the EPL drove the FARC out to the Atrato River.
Previous to 1970, Venezuela’s Douglas Ignacio Bravo Mora had the support of Cuba’s Fidel Castro in leading the guerilla group Venezuelan Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN). However, by July of 1969, Radio Havana was no longer transmitting to Venezuela. This noted the decline of Castro’s support for and confidence in Bravo and FALN.
In August of 1969, EPL was running low on resources and had no adequate weaponry for battle. Therefore, EPL retracted its previous opposition to kidnapping tactics, and sought to build its financial stability through kidnapping. This approval of kidnapping went against Maoist ideals, which em raises the question: how much of a guerrilla group’s actions are truly run by its philosophy?
Similarly, the Colombia National Liberation Army (ELN) also approved kidnapping in 1969 in order to acquire the funds. Previously, ELN depended on voluntary donations from the poor. After adopting kidnapping as a method, ELN mostly kidnapped wealthy individuals and forced them to pay ransom as “war taxes” to the guerrilla group.
In December of 1969, Manuel Perez, also known as “Cura Perez,” joined the ELN after being expelled from Dominican Republic. Perez’s main ideology was that the extremely poor should have the right to fight against capitalism.
September 1969: Uruguayan Tupamaros, the primary anti-government guerrilla group, kidnapped a prominent banker and held him hostage for ten weeks in response to his employees’ strike and anger.
October 8th, 1969: Tupamaros captured Pando, a small town of southern Uruguay. The Tupas came to the town disguised as a funeral procession. This event was known as Toma de Pando. Although the main goal was to distribute flyers throughout the community and promote, those who were captured by the law enforcement were severely tortured. As a result, the Tupamaros started to use intimidation tactics of capturing and torturing any police or government officials involved in the capture of a Tupa.
December 1969: more than 20 priests present Ongania with a petition to stop the eradication of villas miserias (shanty towns or slums). In this presentation, the priests, who were members of the Movement of Priests for the Third World (MSTM), marched on Casa Rosada, the residence of Argentine presidents. At this time, MSTM formally supported socialist revolutions, but such statement of support led the archbishop of Buenos Aires — Antonio Caggiano, who helped Nazi war criminals escape to Argentina and published prologues against Marxist-Leninism — to prohibit priests from making political statements since then.
1969: The Christian Democratic Party of Chile ban MIR (Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria) and start to persecute the leaders, following the “Osses case.” In Osses case, four of MIR’s militants attacked Noticias de la Tarde, a right-wing tabloid, in Concepcion. Although the operation was not fatal, it served as an opportunity for the political party to further vilify and suppress the guerrilla group. 13 MIR leaders were captured and their names were nationally publicized.
May 21, 1969: MIR sympathizers attacked the offices of La Patria Newspaper and the branches of “The City Bank” on the streets of Concepcion.
Potential Developments
As our committee session begins in 1970, tensions between guerilla movements and state governments across Latin America have never been higher. Leftist groups inspired by the Haitian and Cuban revolution precedents and frustrated with the status quo are becoming bolder in their actions and louder in their calls for revolution. Meanwhile, traditional political parties and players are scrambling to address to the growing power of guerilla groups, sometimes resorting to extrajudicial or violent means in attempts to thwart them.
For leftist groups, the struggle will be in balancing revolutionary fervor and long-term strategy. Every violent action invites an equally violent reaction. Every operation holds the possibility of failure. Many operations will benefit from popular support, but gaining that requires a certain amount of legitimacy, and of protecting civilians. Different groups all have unique challenges, but many find common ground on their animosity towards established governments; this tension can play out violently, philosophically, politically, socially.
Guerilla groups’ unique organizational structure allow them to utilize many different tools to achieve their socio-political agenda, and it is up to each one to decide how they will proceed. In addition to considering its relationship with government, a leftist movement must also consider its interaction with other guerilla groups; public image in its country, in Latin America and in the world; funding strategy; organizational structure.
It makes a difference for guerilla groups whether the public is in their favor, whether they are accepted as a legitimate actor in society, whether they can operate long-term through systemic or policy changes.
Governments must address many of the same issues that guerilla groups keep in mind. Public opinion is a powerful ingredient in revolution and must therefore be carefully monitored. Though the status quo is an empowered government, attempts to resolve the issue of populist uprisings can in fact do the opposite -- e.g. when a country criticized for a corrupt criminal justice system convicts or kills a guerilla fighter without a trial, the fighter may be viewed as a martyr for his cause, and the government as corrupt as ever. Governments must consider carefully the pros and cons of different responses to guerilla movements, and keep in mind their desired outcomes. A country may seek to incorporate the guerilla groups into the political system, opting for something like reform or calm debate; they may also try to simply crush the movement with their military in the name of law and order.
Any strategy’s success -- and this goes for all members of the committee -- is of course dependent on its forethought, timing, execution, and scale. This is surely a time of unparalleled socio-political creativity. Guerilla groups, governments, and non-Latin American actors all can benefit from “thinking outside the box” of violent conflict -- many of these groups have interests beyond immediate war, and it’s important to pay attention to your end as much as your means.
Portfolio Powers
At the start of committee, you represent the party in power on January 1st, 1970. As power changes hands, you will represent the same party’s interests throughout the events of committee. For example, if you represent the ruling government, and your government is taken over by a guerrilla group, you will represent the overthrown party rather than the guerrilla group, and vice-versa.
As committee progresses, you may lose or gain powers. As time progresses, your actor may have acquired more powers, historically speaking. However, in committee, your individual portfolio powers can only be changed through the approval of the dais. Feel free to send in any and all crisis requests; those that are historically accurate will be favorably looked upon, and all others will be considered. As your powers are approved, they will remain permanent unless later taken away by Crisis. If you establish long-term alliances with fellow actors, actors may consolidate powers for joint crisis notes. All crisis requests involving the portfolio powers of other actors must have their approval.
Governments
Argentinean government
Chilean government
Colombian government
El Salvadoran government
Nicaraguan government
Guatemalan government
Uruguayan government
You will have ALL government portfolio powers at the start of committee. Government portfolio powers include domestic revenue, international diplomatic power and voice, domestic political influence, and stable intra-party connections.
It is assumed that the entire government consists of members of the party in power. If your party in power is on good terms with the United States, you will also conditionally receive funding, support and intelligence from the government in public AND private forums through notes and requests to the dais and to your fellow delegates (i.e. Kissinger). All other “informal” domestic/foreign connections are assumed to be nonexistent at this time.
Guerrilla groups/Left-wing Movements
Argentine Montoneros: The Montoneros are in the process of formation, and consist of university students and Roman Catholic ideologists. Most members are middle class. Powers include political acts of violence, modest funding and a modest sized army of militants. No useful connections at this time.
Argentine Peronists: Juan Perón participated in a successful military coup in 1943 and became president in 1946. He was later ousted in 1955 and exiled to Spain. Members include industrialists, union workers, conservative political bosses and nationalist army officers. Powers include entrenched political connections, moderate funding and broad public support. However, the Peronists at this time are leaderless and suffer from intra-party division due to conflicting ideologies.
Chilean Revolutionary Left Movement (Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria - MIR): Founded in 1965 by leftist students, MIR is inspired by the Cuban revolution. MIR has just resurfaced after being underground in 1970. The group supports the uncle of one of its young leaders, President Salvador Allende, at this time. However, there have been murmurings of a coup to come. MIR has strong leadership and intra-movement loyalty, but lost some ties to the working class due to its time underground. As a new (again) face, there is less public support but their connection to Allende provides them with more funding and political authenticity.
Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - FARC): As a military wing of the Colombian Communist Party (PCC), FARC was established in 1964 by Manuel Marulanda Velez and other party members. The formation of FARC was in response to the Colombian troop’s massive attack on Marquetalia Republic, a communist enclave. Although it is rapidly gaining the support of communists, FARC only has limited resources and manpower at this stage, as it was only made of 48 original fighters who fled the military attack.
Guatemalan Guerrilla Army Of The Poor (Ejército Guerrillero de los Pobres - EGP): EGP originally stemmed off of the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR) after many of the FAR supporters and members were murdered by the Guatemalan government in the late 1960s, backed by the US. EGP resisted the US economic manipulation and had an overwhelming support of the indigenous peoples, especially Mayans.
Nicaragua Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente Sandinista de Nacional Liberación - FSNL): FSNL was originally a combination of multiple opposition organizations, and students who came together in 1950s. The name comes from a prominent nationalist rebel leader who stood against the US, Augusto Cesar Sandino.
Uruguayan Tupamaros: The Tupamaros rose as a result of these tensions, notably led by Raúl Sendic in 1960 who rallied agricultural workers to demand rural proletariat rights. He helped form trade unions, led marches of the cañeros (sugar workers), and later formed the popular guerilla movement. The Tupamaro Manifesto is insistent upon shared land wealth and accessibility to banking, industry, and commercial power. They demand culpability and rightful persecution of wrongful parties in government and business.
Individuals
Carlos Fonseca Amador: The founder of the Sandinista National Liberation Front, a Nicaraguan teacher. An admirer of the U.S.S.R. since he visited Soviet Union in his youth, Amador was inspired by the Cuban revolution, which he said “convinced [him] that revolution was possible and that a new organization was needed to lead it.” Amador founded the FSLN in 1963.
José Mujica: Born to poor farmers in 1935, Mujica has been a member of the Uruguayan Tupamaros since the mid-60’s. He fought in the guerilla battle at the town of Pando in 1969 for Tupamaros.
Augusto Pinochet: Born in Chile in November 1915, Pinochet was a dedicated student of military and strategic studies from a young age, attending multiple military schools, and eventually tasked with leading one himself. After many years serving and studying in the Chilean military, in 1968 Pinochet was promoted to Brigadier General and Commander-in-Chief of the 6th Division, entitling him to a political appointment of the Intendent of the Tarapaca province.
Henry Kissinger: The Assistant to the President of the United States for National Security Affairs, and the head of the National Security Council in 1969. Before that, Kissinger was a professor at Harvard University in International Relations and won accolades for his book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. In 1969 he wrote in Foreign Affairs, “the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.”
Jorge Rafael Videla: A colonel in the Argentine army, Videla attended National Military College of Argentina in his youth, and after serving in various military positions led the Military Academy until 1962.
Miscellaneous
*All miscellaneous theological members of the committee will have power to influence crisis arcs, author and co-sign directives and crisis notes. However, in order to carry out any actionable plans and crisis arcs, theologies MUST have a cosigning human group: a guerrilla group, a state government/militia, and/or the CIA.
Catholic Church*: The Catholic Church has immeasurable cultural influence in society — affecting both the governments and the people.
Latin American society has been shaped by Catholicism; the Church was historically the region’s biggest landowner and economic powerhouse. Through monitoring the social and political spheres, the church often became both the state and the religion. By the 1960s, the Church’s institutional power waned while the cultural influence remained strong.
In this simulation, the role of the Church comprises of the official conservative Roman Catholic institutional hierarchy based in Vatican City.
Liberation Theology*: Liberation theology is closely intertwined with the Catholic Church. For the purposes of this committee, liberation theology represents a particularly progressive sect of the Church. During the committee’s period of consideration, numerous clergy came forward in support of populist movements and criticized brutal regimes by publicly opposing dictatorships — despite the disapproval of the Vatican. They focused on issues of social and economic equality. Theologians believed that God communicated through the poor and that Latin American Catholicism was vastly different from Roman Catholicism.
In this committee, Liberation Theology comprises of the progressive Latin American group of theologists and clergy within the Catholic Church.
Marxist Theology: Marxist theology is centered around class struggles and social movements as centered around the working class. In Latin America, Marxism was often considered alongside liberation theology as a crux of the movement. Although ideological unity has been historically prioritized in Marxist communities, Latin American Marxism must be distinguished its unique political and social climate. One such inspired example is the Guevara-developed theory of ‘foquismo’, where ‘foco’ guerilla groups were substituted for vanguard parties. The theory argues that these small, fast moving groups generate more focused attacks and revolutionary change. Foquismo emphasized proactive creation of revolutionary conditions rather than waiting for the right time to strike. Latin American Marxists often clashed with many mainstream communist parties, who considered their guerilla ventures to be dangerous and misguided.
American CIA: Throughout the Latin American revolutionary period, the CIA carried out many covert operations in order to install and protect governments in favor of the U.S. Concerns over the pink tide of communism/socialism were the major motivation at the time. The Latin American regime changes were orchestrated through both single-state and multistate established relationships such as Operation Condor, which was established by the U.S. to combat leftist and communist ideology. Using CIA trainers, techniques and technology, military were armed with the knowledge and capital to brutalize guerilla groups.
Questions To Consider
How are peace accords between guerrilla groups and governments initiated and executed/abandoned?
What events have exacerbated the mistrust between the rebel forces and the governments?
How do the Marxist theology and Catholic church influence the relationships between the citizens and the rebel forces?
How strictly must a group’s actions follow its formal philosophy, and how should the philosophy be formally altered?
To what extent should governments and guerilla groups take attacks on human resources and capital resources, and which should they value more?
How can guerrilla groups articulate their philosophy in the form of policy changes if a coup succeeds?
In what ways are both illicit and public relationships crucial to the maintenance of a hostile front between two parties?
What roles do external forces (CIA) and internal forces (spies and defectors) play in the conflict?
