To begin your research on these issues, you may want to visit the ICONS Research Library. The key to a successful simulation is found in the research that a country team does on a continuing basis throughout the program. You will need a thorough understanding of policy and issues in order to strike a balance between creativity and realism in the negotiations.

Simulation participants: Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States

While the scenario sets the stage for the negotiation, the actual path that the negotiations will follow depends solely on the initiatives of the participating country-teams. Based upon their foreign policy goals, countries are encouraged to develop proposals to deal with specific problems that affect them. Ideally, the negotiations should be conducted over these proposals, not countries' general reactions to the simulation issues.

The setting for this simulation is summer 2002. The simulation is set in the future to encourage you to be creative in developing your own policies and proposals instead of duplicating real-life events and decisions as they happen.

ICONS Proposal Center

Pre-Established Conferences

There will be two, one-hour conferences scheduled for each of the issue areas to be negotiated in this simulation. All simulation participants are invited to all conferences. These conferences will be chaired by Simcon. A conference schedule and questions for negotiation prepared by Simcon will be distributed prior to the beginning of the simulation. A conference agenda will be distributed several days before each of the scheduled conferences. Simcon will draft the agenda to take into account the course of the negotiations to date.

Please remember that conferences are not necessarily the end of the negotiations; most often, they are just another step in the process. In addition, participants will, with the approval of Simcon, have the opportunity to schedule meetings with other simulation members to discuss issues of mutual interest. To request such a meeting, the country should send a message to Simcon stating the time, participants, and issues for discussion.

Simulation Issues

Introduction
As the new millennium begins, the international community is faced with a new set of challenges and a vastly different landscape than at any time during the past hundred years. With the end of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union, the world is no longer faced with the prospect of superpower conflict. Alliances designed to function during the East-West tension of that period have become less important, while new forms of alliances are evolving around issues more complex than before. The focus of international relations has shifted from East-West military competition to a North-South focus on the economic and political gulfs between the nations of the developed North (the United States, Europe, and Japan) and developing nations in the South. At no time has the gap between the haves and have-nots been so apparent, yet simultaneously so difficult to address. In this set of negotiations, participants will have the opportunity to explore these issues in detail, propose solutions, and form cooperative relationships with other participant nations to pursue positive outcomes for their nations.

International Security
While international security remains at the forefront of international relations, the end of the Cold War in the 1990s has altered the way international security is considered. In a new era free of superpower confrontation, the focus has changed to regional conflicts, terrorism, and peacekeeping activities. The Cold War-era division of the world between East and West has now become significantly more complex, requiring re-evaluation of traditional military and diplomatic practices. Security in the twenty-first century now involves concerns over terrorism and "rogue states," as well as international emphasis on regional conflicts and peacekeeping. International efforts to address these issues present challenges to existing organizations and alliances, while also questioning traditional diplomatic norms about such issues as sovereignty and intervention.

Terrorism and "Rogue States"
While the threat of superpower confrontation has ended, nations now find themselves faced with danger from terrorism [analysis] and rogue states (which the U.S. now calls "states of concern"). Existing political and military alliances were, for the most part, formed within the framework of the Cold War, and therefore are not always well positioned to meet the challenges posed by these new threats. In order to meet these new challenges, it is likely that existing organizations will need to be adapted or new ones created. As these threats continue to grow, efforts at building international cooperation in these areas will become increasingly important.

Counter-terrorism databases list over 3,000 suspected terrorist groups. The more successful of these groups have plenty of money to support training, the acquisition of weaponry (along with explosives and chemical and biological agents), and the planning and implementation of large-scale attacks. Osama bin Laden, the Saudi expatriate whose group is alleged to have orchestrated the August 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the September 2001 strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has a personal fortune estimated to be as high as $300 million [analysis]. The recent attacks in the United States have demonstrated the risk for terrorist violence to occur, the potential for severe damage (both human and economic), and the difficulty in preventing them.

Efforts to counteract terrorism internationally are extremely difficult since, in many cases, terrorist organizations locate themselves in countries with weak central governments that lack the ability to monitor their activities or where certain government factions might be sympathetic to their activities [analysis]. These factors often make it difficult for one country to take direct action against hostile terrorist organizations located in another country; any steps taken to neutralize a terrorist threat could be viewed as an attack on a sovereign state, rather than against the terrorist organization operating within that particular country's borders. Countries that are used as bases by terrorists may also be reluctant to cooperate with international efforts because action against these groups may create resistance from sympathetic domestic populations, particularly when these groups share religious beliefs as in the cases of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Rogue states [analysis] include nations that harbor terrorists as well as those nations thought to be acting outside of international norms. In recent years, this category has been used to justify actions against Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Serbia, and Iran. These actions have ranged from economic and political isolation to coordinated military attacks, which have generally involved ad hoc negotiation among selected nations. While the consequences of being labeled a rogue state are severe, there remain no set criteria or formal process that leads to the final decision on the status of a country. Instead, the category appears to many to be an arbitrary designation that often depends on a nation's relationships with international powers. In order to create legitimacy for the concept of rogue states, the international community will need to create objective criteria for this category, as well as a decision-making mechanism based in the system of international law.

While the threats posed by terrorism and rogue states are serious, efforts to contain them have to this point been reactive rather than preventive [analysis]. In other words, the international community has been focused on dealing with threats once they become apparent, rather than working to prevent them from becoming dangerous to begin with. Observers argue that preventive approaches would be both more effective as well as more efficient, saving both lives and money. The spread of conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction has accelerated in the post-Cold War era, and presently shows no signs of slowing. The availability of increasingly sophisticated weapons to terrorists, for example, challenges the ability of internationalcounter-terrorism efforts. Rogue states, on the other hand, have found it increasingly easy to gain access to advanced weapons, including nuclear technology. In particular, concern has been expressed regarding control by the states of the former Soviet Union over nuclear materials, as well as the promotion of arms sales by many nations as a means of gaining foreign trade income [analysis]. Preventive approaches designed to limit the access of terrorists and rogue states to these arms are needed, including international agreements about standards and enforcement.

Peacekeeping and Peacemaking
The predominant model of war has changed in recent years from the traditional state-versus-state concept of the twentieth century towards increasingly internal conflicts that revolve around ethnic and/or territorial dynamics. This shift from international wars to intrastate wars of identity has often led to genocidal outcomes, as in the ethnic cleansing witnessed in the former Yugoslavia and in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The international community, based on state-level organizations, has responded slowly (if at all) to these sub-national conflicts, and has often stood by while these brutal campaigns continued unchecked. Determining when and how to act, as well as through what formal organization, remains problematic. International peacekeepers, under the command of the United Nations or regional organizations, have been deployed in many situations, although their role in these conflicts is often unclear and their effectiveness questionable.

One of the primary questions regarding peacekeeping is the role of the peacekeeping troops themselves. A distinction between peacekeeping (e.g., monitoring cease fire agreements, supervising decommissioning of arms, and assisting refugee resettlement) and peacemaking (for example, disarming combatants, protecting refugees from attacks, and creating buffer zones between opponents) is often made [UN report]. Strict definitions of peacekeeping usually refer to activities undertaken once hostilities have ended, but might be too late in the case of genocidal conflicts. On the other hand, peacemaking presents the risk of casualties and long-term interventions that most nations are reluctant to accept. The role of peacekeepers, and their level of involvement in existing conflicts, needs to be examined and a set of guidelines agreed to on this issue.

Sovereignty is central to this issue. Within the traditional international system, nations are considered sovereign entities that have significant discretion about activities within their borders. The issue for the international community is to find an appropriate balance between national sovereignty and the right of the international community to intervene in genocidal conduct. The boundary between the two has not been clearly defined, and responses by the international community often seem contradictory (or worse) as seen, for example, in the very different attitudes towards crises in Kosovo [background] and Rwanda [analysis]. The international community is faced with the problem of creating a set of standards that clearly delineate when sovereignty is to be respected and when intervention is necessary.

In addition, the composition of peacekeeping forces has not been settled. The United Nations has traditionally been the main provider of peacekeeping forces, yet there has been disagreement about funding of these missions as well as the leadership of troop contingents. Some large donors, most conspicuously the United States, have been reluctant, or have even refused, to provide funding for UN missions. Similarly, there has been resistance to putting national armed forces under the command of United Nations military leadership. One alternative that has been proposed is the use of regional peacekeeping forces, which are trained and supported through international cooperative agreements. For example, the United States has been active in supporting the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [analysis], which would provide a response force in Africa composed of troops from the region. While this would have advantages in terms of faster response, critics contend that regional forces may not always be neutral in these conflicts, and that the end result may be to increase conflict rather than stop it.

Global Environment
For billions of years, the Earth's ecosystem has been self-sustaining, balanced by processes of natural regulation and regeneration. Humans have slightly disrupted this balance in the past, with such activities as slash-and-burn agriculture, for example. However, the Industrial Revolution has given humans the capacity to greatlymagnify this disruption through the use of fossil fuels and machines. While there has been some recognition of the need for conservation, scientists speak of "thresholds" beyond which natural systems will not be able to repair and regenerate from human usage and development. As natural resource consumption and pollution continue to increase worldwide, signs of climate change have begun to accelerate. While technological developments show promise in reducing these emissions, there remain many questions about the impact on economic development from attempts to limit emissions. Given the large (and growing) gap in economic development between nations of the global North (Europe, the United States, Japan, etc.) and the South (developing nations in general), questions about responsibility and fairness remain an issue.

Global Warming

Kyoto Protocol [analysis] to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Control [resources]

Measurable changes in average temperatures, sea levels, and the ozone layer are all symptoms of environmental damage from emissions of "greenhouse gasses" from the consumption of fossil fuels and the use of manmade chemical compounds. Global warming, a gradual rise in the Earth's average temperature, is one of the foremost international environmental concerns. Many scientists believe a major cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. Typically released by industrial emissions and automobiles, these gases, primarily carbon dioxide, trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists speculate that this "greenhouse effect" may lead to major environmental changes, including severe changes in weather patterns and coastal flooding caused by melting polar caps. However, other scientists dismiss this theory and contend that the fluctuation in the Earth's surface temperature is a natural phenomenon. They assert that there is not enough evidence to prove that the earth is experiencing a significant or permanent climatic change.

One key issue in the debate over global warming is the question of who should bear the burden of reducing emissions. For example, during the Kyoto conference in 1997-a follow up to the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [analysis]-the United States threatened to block agreement on an international framework because developing nations were exempted from emissions reduction targets. While the U.S. finally relented at the conference, the U.S. Congress delayed final ratification over this very issue. In 2001, the Bush administration announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the agreement, stating that it was unfair for some countries to undertake reductions while others were not required to. Developing nations counter that the overwhelming majority of existing damage was caused by the industrialization of the developed countries, and that they should have an opportunity to develop as well. However, environmental scientists have estimated that, given current trends, developing nations will out-pollute the developed countries in just over a decade. Annual meetings continue to be held, but the question of when (and if) developing nations should be required to reduce emissions remains unresolved. This is likely to delay full implementation of the Kyoto accord [analysis] and complicate further attempts at negotiations on this issue.

Legislation adopted by most developed nations to limit pollution from industry, has been effective in reducing environmental damage to air and water quality. In many cases, however, developing nations have become a refuge for outmoded and heavily polluting industries that are no longer viable in developed countries. Nations of the South are often faced with high debt and extreme poverty among their citizens, and need to encourage international companies to invest in their economies. This need to attract investment has created incentives for many nations to become "pollution havens," where chemical and other industrial multinational corporations relocate to escape environmental regulations at home. Given the absence of international standards for pollution control, individual developing nations cannot afford to require multinationals to adopt these expensive technologies, since it would harm investment in their economies. Since there is no single standard, the gap in environmental quality between North and South is likely to continue to grow as more multinationals relocate industries to developing nations.

A related issue is deforestation [resources]. Concerns over the future of the rainforest, and undeveloped natural areas in general, create similar tensions between the nations of the North and South. Environmentalists argue that protecting existing forest areas is critical to maintaining a balanced environment, as trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and provide habitats for numerous species. However, increasing global demand for forest resources and the need for additional space for development creates tension between the environment and economics. Nations with forest resources argue that they should have the right to use them to attract trade and investment, similar to the way forests were used during development in the North. A statement of principles on deforestation was released at the Rio "Earth Summit". It recognizes the economic applications of the rain forests as well as the global need to preserve them. The statement does not require any specific actions by rain forest countries, which resist a binding treaty out of concern for their sovereignty and economic development. (Some observers claim that deforestation demonstrates the growing rift between economic "haves" and "have-nots" in regards to environmental conditions. Japan, in particular, has been praised for preserving its forests, and at the same time criticized for its high rate of lumber consumption, which has provided great financial incentives for poorer countries in Southeast Asia to export forest resources.)

Green Technology
"Green technology" refers to the adoption of environmentally friendly tools and methods for energy production, industry, and agriculture. The idea includes both cleaning up after old environmental problems and developing new products that have environmental benefits. Some observers say that in the absence of widespread changes in producers' and consumers' habits, advances in technology may offer the best solution to environmental problems over the long term.

With the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there has been great attention focused upon renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro-power. Efforts to increase alternative energy use have met with mixed results, however, because they have proven to be far too expensive in practice to provide a realistic alternative to traditional fossil fuels. Solar and wind power are still inefficient and dependent on weather conditions, and hydro-electric dams often create environmental problems of their own, such as destruction of habitats and alterations of river ecosystems. Nuclear energy advocates promise a more efficient and reliable energy source, although it poses the threat of nuclear accidents and long-term waste storage. Given the current state of these existing alternatives, reliance on fossil fuels for generating power and providing transportation remains the most reliable and affordable option in the near term.

Improvements in this technology would require huge investment, yet there is no existing market for these technologies even if improvements were to occur. For example, in 1999 Honda sold only seventeen of their new gasoline/electric hybrid automobiles in the United States, despite reducing the price to the point that the company lost over $10,000 per car. In short, existing technology is inadequate, yet the expense of improving the technology cannot be justified from a business perspective since there is no profit to be made.

Improvements in fossil fuel technology, such as smokestack "scrubbers," have been legislated in most developed nations to improve air quality [U. S. Environmental Technology Verification program]. Advances in technology promise to further reduce pollution, yet developing nations are largely unable to afford the high cost of upgrading their industries and power plants without taking on additional debt. International patent protection laws prevent developing nations from engineering their own domestic versions of these technologies, while multinationals are reluctant to negotiate compromises in this area. Without a means to affordably transfer this technology to developing nations, it will be difficult to address concerns over global emissions rates. In addition, environmental degradation will continue to accelerate in developing nations, harming the air, land, and water, as well as causing additional health problems for their citizens that, in the long run, will limit development.

Green technology is also of a matter of great importance to agriculture. As the world's population increases, especially in developing countries that may be more prone to famine, more efficient food production is a great priority. This is especially true because there is limited land that is well suited for agriculture. If not enough food is produced on these lands, farmers will attempt to grow crops in more marginal lands, something that has led to the destruction of sensitive ecosystems such as the Brazilian rainforest. Increased international trade in agricultural products may help alleviate some hunger problems, but many analysts believe that it is important for developing countries to increase their self-sufficiency. In the realm of agriculture, green technology can refer to pesticides and herbicides that do not lead to toxic chemicals in soils or the food supply, improved land management techniques, and the use of plant varieties that have been developed to thrive in particular environments [Food and Agriculture Organization report]. Some would claim that these are not "green" at all. The issue of genetically-engineered food has raised concerns about farmers' becoming dependent on multinational corporations. For example, rather than holding back some of his crop for replanting the following year, a farmer growing a certain variety of soybeans must buy seeds from Monsanto every year because they have been engineered so that all new seeds from that crop are sterile (so-called "Terminator technology" [analysis]). Besides the obvious economic criticisms of this practice, opponents have said that this kind of agriculture poses a great threat to biodiversity of food crops and could actually spread the sterility trait to other crops planted in the area [Biodiversity Convention resources]. An alternative approach referred to as sustainable development focuses on small-scale agricultural techniques to decrease the level of dependency on technology and the industrialized world. In this context, Asia's "Green Revolution" [analysis] of the 1960s and 1970s was criticized for its reliance on heavy equipment, pesticides, and irrigation to produce crops, sometimes on land that was not well suited for agriculture. Proponents of sustainable development call for "subsistence" agricultural methods that are sensitive to and appropriate for local environments, such as planting crops that do not require much water on dry lands rather than using irrigation to grow crops that have large water requirements, and eliminating the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides.

Human Rights

International Standards
The concept of human rights has been debated for millennia, yet no enforceable definition has yet been proposed that is acceptable to all. Individual governments have, historically, specified the rights of their citizens through constitutions and other official declarations. Furthermore, diverse cultural and religious values can lead countries to define human rights differently. Because of these differences, the rights that one is entitled to are largely the result of where is one is born, rather than being inherently "universal rights." In attempting to address the issue of an international standard for human rights, then, it becomes very difficult to determine which individual rights supersede governmental prerogatives, religious beliefs, and cultural norms.

The United Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948, as a "standard of achievement" for all countries. Over the past 50 years, however, there has been widespread disagreement over the responsibility of individual nations to comply with these guidelines, since the UDHR is a non-binding agreement. The language of the document itself is general, which allows for interpretations based upon different nation's particular views on human rights (allowing for differences in culture, religion, and political and economic systems). At the same time, the UDHR does not provide measurable outcomes for the statements within. Subsequent UN efforts, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (along with its two optional Protocols)-both of which are binding international treaties-have defined the concept of human rights more specifically, but are only applicable to those states that have accepted them. The UDHR, along with the two Covenants, is said to constitute the International Bill of Rights [analysis].

The next step in promoting and protecting human rights worldwide is further specification of the principles outlined in the UDHR, along with concrete plans for guaranteeing and enforcing them, in effect, making the UDHR a binding international agreement. The June 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna [analysis] met with this purpose, but did not achieve its goals; the arguments about what constitutes basic human rights were nothing new. Many democratic countries continue to assert that these rights lie in the freedom of self-determination, where citizens have a voice in their government and an influence on the policies their elected representatives pursue. Some non-democratic countries believe that basic human rights mean that the state itself is responsible for providing for the well being of its citizens, such as food, shelter and employment, arguing that these considerations are more important than so-called "political rights." (The Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights allows for countries to "progressively realize" these rights within the limits of their available resources [analysis].) Although the conference was unsuccessful in bridging many of the points of contention between countries, it did establish the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Also needed are ways of handling complaints that governments are not upholding the rights that they have pledged to guarantee for their citizens and enforcing findings. While 143 countries have ratified or acceded to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, only 101 states have agreed to the first Optional Protocol that provides for a formal complaint mechanism [ratification status of human rights treaties]. So far, countries have not found a way to strengthen the ability of the international community to act against alleged violators in an impartial, non-political way.

Enforcement and the International Criminal Court
Although the UDHR is non-binding, the international community has agreed that there are certain violations of human rights that should be forbidden. The widely accepted Convention against Genocide and Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of individuals in wartime, allow for the punishment of individual violators. Ideally, these cases should be tried at the national level because it is the national governments who have assumed responsibility for making sure that these rights are respected. However, there are times when this is impossible, such as when a nation is in conflict or when the accused are governmental officials. The Nuremburg Tribunal [analysis] marked the first time that war crimes were tried in an international court. Since that time, there has been intermittent discussion on the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court [resources] to prosecute individuals accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious war crimes. Proponents of an international court have argued that it is easier to convict someone of killing one person than to convict someone of the murder of thousands. In the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia [analysis] killed an estimated two million people, but, as in other cases, securing accountability has been uneven and often delayed for decades.

Genocidal conflicts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s have given great impetus to the movement for a permanent court. In both those cases, ad hoc tribunals were established to prosecute violations of humanitarian law, but they are limited in their scope. A permanent International Criminal Court would have greater autonomy and a greater ability to investigate and prosecute suspected crimes [analysis]. Such a court would not have to be established for every new conflict (avoiding disputes over which conflicts "deserve" a tribunal). Supporters also argue that a permanent court would guarantee that justice is served, and therefore pose a greater deterrent. (The ICC is separate from the already established International Court of Justice, which makes non-binding decisions on disputes between states.)

The UN General Assembly convened a conference to draft a convention to establish such a court. The negotiations on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were completed in July 1998. As of December 31, 2000, the treaty had been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 37 [ratification status]. The treaty will go into effect when 60 countries have ratified it. Under the convention, the ICC will have the power to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes when national governments fail to do so. Prosecutors will be able to launch investigations without being specifically requested to do so by the Security Council or the state in question. (The Security Council will, in fact, have no control over which cases the court will hear.) A potential weakness is that the court cannot exercise universal jurisdiction. If the Security Council does not refer the case, then either the state in which the crime allegedly occurred or of which the accused is a citizen must be a party to the treaty or must consent to its jurisdiction.

The United States is the most prominent opponent of the structure of the ICC negotiated in Rome, and was one of seven countries (China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, United States and Yemen) that voted against the treaty. Although the United States recently signed the Rome Treaty [statement by President Clinton], it has said that it plans to work to change the structure from within. It has argued against universal jurisdiction, specifically the right of the court to prosecute "nationals of non-state parties" carrying out official duties, fearing that U.S. military personnel serving in peacekeeping missions could be accused of war crimes by adversaries and subject to prosecution in an international court [statement of U.S. position]. More generally, opponents of the court argue that "globalization" of world justice systems undermines sovereignty and prevents governments from protecting their own citizens.

Although the International Criminal Court is likely to become a reality, the final extent of its powers and who will actually be subject to it are still open questions.

International Political Economy

Debt
Developing nations face an overwhelming level of debt, which threatens their current economic stability and limits their options to pursue future development. This debt is the result of loans from both international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund (IMF), and from individual nations (bilateral loans). Lenders have, in most cases, been willing to restructure these loans and continue lending in order to support troubled economies. However, debtor nations must typically agree to conditions, including lowering their domestic spending and opening their economies to multinational corporations. However, debt levels continue to grow even with these "structural adjustment policies" in place. In the most highly indebted nations, debt payments now exceed spending on domestic programs such as education and health care. Critics charge that these debts have become a new form of colonialism, enforcing relationships of inequality on developing nations, which keeps them from becoming fully independent [NGO website]. These critics also note that, in most cases, these nations have already paid back more than the original amounts of many loans, and current payments are the result of high interest rates.

Many debtor states accumulated their debt under undemocratic, and often repressive, regimes that have since been replaced [analysis]. This is particularly the case in sub-Saharan Africa. Dictators such as Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) incurred massive debt for their nations, amassing great personal wealth while promoting little actual development. During the 1970s and 80s, international loans helped support the increasingly isolated Apartheid regime in South Africa, creating debts that now threaten to derail the democratic rebirth of South Africa that began in the 1990s. Loans made to the Marcos regime in the Philippines, Noriega regime in Panama, and other corrupt governments have created serious difficulties for democratic transition. IFIs (and to a large degree bilateral lenders) continue to provide loans to corrupt regimes, and have not acted to assist in the recovery of assets stolen by corrupt regimes in the past. An effective effort to recover these stolen assets would require international assistance from governments and banking institutions, as well as active enforcement of international laws related to the theft of public assets.

Recently, efforts have been underway to encourage lenders to forgive the debts of developing nations. A variety of humanitarian groups have begun to organize around the Jubilee 2000 movement, launched in 1990 and endorsed by the Vatican, which calls for a one-time forgiveness of all debt for the world's poorest countries. Frequent protests at world financial meetings in developed and developing nations alike draw global attention to this issue, leading a few bilateral lenders to individually forgive some debts owed to them. Recent estimates of the total debt (bilateral and IFI) of the 52 poorest nations is $376 billion, or less than one-half of estimated world military spending in 1998 alone ($800 billion). Lenders argue that forgiving debt would destabilize international lending by creating losses for lenders, and would also create incentives for future non-payment of debt as well as discourage future lending.

Development
Closely related to the debt issue is that of development [analysis]. Developing nations, in addition to their indebtedness, face an immediate need to improve their economic position in order to raise living standards for their citizens. Developed nations benefit from development through increased trade and gaining new export markets for their products. In the past, states have pursued a variety of approaches to development, either externally focused strategies such as increasing trade and attracting investment, or internally focused approaches such as state-led economic programs and rapid industrialization. None of these approaches have proven to be universally successful, although state-led development in East Asia (combining state and market both internationally and domestically) did lead to success in Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. While the global trend is now to increase external involvement to pursue development, there remain questions about how to implement this approach with the best results for all concerned.

Increased competition in the marketplace has essentially created two separate economies: the "new economy," based on high value-added technology and services, and the "old economy" which includes lower profit industrial and raw material production. Increasingly, this economic division is less visible domestically, while the gap is becoming more dramatic internationally [statement by Kofi Annan]. Developed nations have led the way in converting to the new economy, which has spurred record economic growth and profits, while the industries of the old economy have migrated to developing nations. While some developing nations have succeeded in creating domestic technology sectors (such as the computer hardware and software industries of South Korea, India, and Brazil), this development strategy has required protectionist measures and government involvement that violates free-market principles. The strategic and economic importance of these nations has kept them from being sanctioned and isolated by developed nations, but smaller nations that rely on international support do not have the same flexibility. Additionally, as more and more economic activity requires technological infrastructure (computer networks, high-speed Internet connections, and increasingly sophisticated security measures), the international gap between the old and new economies is likely to grow.

Developing nations need international investment to build their economies, yet there is a limited amount of investment to be had. Nations find themselves in competition against each other to provide the most attractive investment climate, including domestic stability, business-friendly regulations, and low labor costs. Advocates of trade argue that this can be positive for citizens, by increasing employment and wages by creating new economic opportunities. However, this competition can also lead to negative results by creating pressures for nations to lower environmental and labor standards, while providing so many financial incentives for the investor that there is little gain in the form of tax revenues and reinvestment. This "race to the bottom" has often been criticized; since multinationals have the freedom to invest anywhere, they have great leverage to demand substantial concessions in return for their investment [analysis]. In an era that is defined by complete faith in free markets, states have few alternatives to private capital to reach their development goals. In the absence of a clear set of international standards on investment and corporate responsibility, developing nations are faced with a difficult decision over how aggressively they seek investment and how much accountability they can demand of investors.

Globalization

Trade
Free trade is at the heart of much of the dialogue between the north and south, involving issues related to development, fairness, and human rights. While free trade promises many benefits, such as job creation, economic growth, and increased competition, there are those who feel that opening developing markets too quickly is not the best approach. In particular, they are concerned that rapid opening of an economy can create uncertainty and disruption, affecting employment and business practices. As advances in technology and transportation make international economic transactions fast and reliable, nations face pressure to keep pace with international changes in trade. While existing inequalities between nations can make equal trade relationships difficult, nations cannot entirely isolate themselves from the international market.

Today, the international consensus supports a single international agreement on trade, through the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO provides a set of trade standards for member states concerning such issues as tariffs, access to markets, and oversight of financial transactions. Supporters of the WTO maintain that it "levels the playing field" by reducing barriers to market entry for products, and that it standardizes regulations among nations to create more equal competition, limiting protectionist policies and standardizing regulatory frameworks (such as environmental and labor laws) among WTO members. Critics, however, maintain that protectionism can be beneficial to a national economy, allowing local industries time to develop and become competitive. Similarly, opponents suggest that by standardizing regulations, nations will be forced to drastically lower their environmental and labor standards to comply with international norms and stay economically competitive (leading to a so-called "race to the bottom") [website]. Resolving the concerns of free trade advocates and citizen activists may require a reevaluation of the goals of international free trade, seeking a compromise between economic and social concerns that all can agree on.

An alternative to global free trade is the creation of Regional Free Trade Zones. Countries that become part of a regional trade agreement drastically reduce tariffs and other trade barriers on goods entering from other member countries. Such regional trade agreements as the European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) [analysis], and the Southern Cone Common Market (Mercosur) have been largely successful from the perspective of their members. Regional free trade allows increased economic activity within the bloc, while maintaining some barriers to prevent domination by much larger international economies, such as the United States and Japan. Advocates suggest that this helps domestic industry develop and compete on a more equal basis, and will eventually assist entry into the global economy. Critics charge that these agreements create barriers to competition, damaging the goal of truly international free trade. While new regional trade agreements continue to be negotiated, disagreement continues about the benefits and costs of regional free trade.

Labor standards [analysis] are another central issue in discussions of international trade. One consequence of the opening of markets through free trade is that businesses are able to take advantage of variations in labor standards among member nations to relocate their production to increase profits. For example, a side effect of NAFTA has been the relocation of U.S. companies to Mexico, where they pay significantly lower wages and have fewer worker safety regulations. Since goods produced in Mexico are not subject to tariffs or other regulation when they are sold in the United States, these companies gain the dual benefits of low production costs and high consumer prices. While this relationship creates employment gains for developing nations, critics in both developed and developing nations see dangers from this continued competition for jobs. In order to attract and retain investment, nations must compete to have the most attractive labor standards, which often means low wages and a lack of protection for workers. In December 1996, the first ministerial conference of the WTO in Singapore confronted this very controversial issue. The United States and many European countries expressed concerned about the use of child laborers, the rights of trade unions, and unsafe sweatshop conditions. Developing nations, led by India, Pakistan, and Egypt, viewed the proposals by developed countries as interference in their domestic policies and as an attempt to undermine their market advantage-cheap labor. The social costs of this competition are often severe, but without an agreement on minimal labor standards there appears to be little that workers can do to ensure that they also receive a share of the gains of free trade [International Labour Organization website].

Intellectual Property Rights
There has been increasing emphasis on protecting intellectual property rights, but international agreements have had the effect of maintaining high prices and reducing the availability of these items [World Intellectual Property Organization Website]. Patent and copyright holders can legally exclude competition for years, allowing them to set their own prices. Since prices are based on incomes in developed nations, they are often out of reach for most of the world's population. This discrepancy serves to emphasize the have/have-not gap in terms of health care, technology, and industry, leading to either additional debt for developing nations or a lack of access to these items for their citizens. For example, the United States has recently taken Brazil to court [article] through the WTO over patents on aids drugs.

The growth of "new economy" industries coupled with increased international trade has increased the importance of the issue of intellectual property rights [definition], such as patents and copyrights. These rights are designed to protect holders of copyrights and patents by preventing unauthorized copying of protected products, works, and processes. Companies and individuals that develop products and services want to control ownership of these rights in order to receive the profits that these items produce; they argue that without a period of time to recover their research and development costs, it would be unprofitable to continue innovating. On the other hand, patents and copyrights also create higher costs for consumers, which can make protected products too expensive for many, ironically creating a large market for violations of these intellectual property rights. This is particularly true in the digital realm. New technologies [analysis] allow individuals to copy and transmit sound, video, and computer programs instantaneously around the world, with virtually no cost and with little risk of being caught.

One response to the high costs of new products is unauthorized duplication, or piracy. Piracy of protected products is becoming more common in developing nations as technology makes copying easier and local economic conditions create a strong market for more affordable products [analysis]. Multinationals are demanding that governments in these countries protect them and ensure that they receive the profits they are entitled to under law. Governments in turn find themselves legally obligated to expend already-scarce resources protecting these companies, which has the effect of denying their own citizens access to affordable (although illegal) products. Critics of these laws make the argument that, in fact, these companies are not actually losing money since they would not have sold their products to these customers in the first place due to the price. Some also contend that pirated computer software in particular can lead to future legal purchases due to the increased productivity, education, and/or efficiency that it produces, which can lead to more income and the ability to afford these legal versions.

As research in the biotechnology field continues, the topic of ownership of biological resources has become an important issue. Increasingly, pharmaceutical companies are seeking new drugs and treatments that are based on naturally occurring compounds extracted from plant species often found in developing countries. Since there is no law regarding who can patent these discoveries, promising advances become the legal property of the companies doing the research. Because multinationals can patent these discoveries in their home countries, in most cases the communities where these compounds are found receive little, or nothing, in return. The Convention on Biological Diversity has among its objectives "the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources." However, questions about compensating the developing nations for biological materials with medical and commercial applications while protecting the investments and interests of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have not been resolved.

This scenario is an introduction to the issues you will be discussing in the ICONS simulation. It also gives a very brief overview of some of the interests and policies of other nations in the program. The scenario is not meant to be the principal resource for the development of your policies or the conduct of your negotiations. It is a starting point. You now need to research your own nation's history, foreign policy, and relations with the other countries involved.

There may be developments in these issues before the program begins. A scenario update may be released before the beginning of the program. After the program begins, real world developments will not affect the ICONS simulation. Your challenge will be to come up with a better agreement than the experts have found.

About ICONS | Participant Resources | Current Simulations
Future Simulations | Research Library | Site Map

© 2002, ICONS Project
Department of Government & Politics
University of Maryland
icons@gvpt.umd.edu

http://www.icons.umd.edu/current/hs/scenario/s_02shs2.htm
Last modified: February 21, 2002