The dispute over an imminent threat or a violation of sovereignty: The United States and Soviet Union in the Leaders Summit.

Por: Miguel Vallejo Hoyos Envigado, March 4, 2026

The Leaders' Summit, a historical committee in COSMUN 2026, stands out due to the complex negotiations and debates in which students simulate high stress environments. In the 33d edition of COSMUN, delegations are reviewing a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Set in the 1960s, the threat of a nuclear war reached its peak, shortly after John F. Kennedy was elected as the United States president.

The central issue and debate of this committee circles around missiles in Cuban territory. The United States delegates argue that the missiles pose an apparent threat to their homeland security, risking a bigger conflict while the Soviet Union delegates maintain that the missiles’ only purpose is for defence rather than attacking. Students fill the role of historical figures and political leaders and advisors, debating the legality, security and possible outcomes of missile deployment.

From the perspective of the United States, missiles placed in Cuba pose an imminent threat and a clear sign of war. Representatives repeat constantly that the proximity of the missiles is interpreted as the missiles being instruments of war. Officials such as Robert McNamara characterize the deployment as an act of intimidation and warn that the Soviet Union is attempting to pressure the United States strategically. Other members of the United States support that argument such as Lyndon B. Johnson which stated, “We will not let the soviet union hold a gun to the head of the american people” the representative Robert McNamara added that peace can not be sustained using missiles in order to pressure other countries.

The United States delegation also discussed the possible outcomes that Robert McNamara proposed when asked about solutions and ways to end the conflict: negotiation, a naval quarantine with surveillance, or a direct airstrike. While acknowledging the importance of the threat, President Kennedy expresses openness to negotiation and indicates that the United States does not seek an immediate aggressive response which confirms the United States posture overall: Soviet Union missiles are a threat towards American people and the delegation of the United States will not tolerate any kind of danger that might affect the country and while they are open to negotiate, this is a serious matter in which if needed the delegation is open to using other solutions to mark an end to the conflict.

In contrast, the Soviet and Cuban representatives call the missile deployment as a sovereign and defensive measure. Cuban leader Fidel Castro argues that the missiles are “simply defensive with no aggression” and argues that every nation has the right to defend itself. He references previous U.S. actions toward Cuba, including the 1961 invasion attempt, supporting the claim that Cuba faces legitimate security concerns therefore justifying the existence of missiles in their territory. Carlos Lechuga reinforced the idea stating that, “Missiles placed in Cuba are simply defensive with no aggression.” By presenting the fact of having missiles in Cuban territory which are allegedly “pointing to the United States” according to the United States delegates, the Soviet Union delegates justify their missiles, a response that the American representatives are currently not satisfied with.

Soviet Union representatives challenged the United States to identify any international law prohibiting a sovereign nation from hosting nuclear weapons and missiles, which there was no law recognized. Using this same logic, Cuba compared itself with the similar U.S. missiles that are stationed in Europe within reach of Soviet territory. After this point, the debate took another turn that is planned and going to be discussed in the following sessions: Why can the United States have missiles surrounding the Soviet Union while there should not be missiles in Cuba?

The exchange between the delegations showed a positive environment where students in the leaders’ summit were able to showcase their knowledge and demonstrate advanced debating and communication skills. Posing as different figures from the United States and the Soviet Union, students experienced the debate centering on competing definitions of defense, sovereignty, and intimidation, highlighting how different perspectives can view the same event. Using these different perspectives, the committee highlights the complexity of international diplomacy during periods of heightened mistrust and nuclear rivalry.