One of the major challenges facing any government involved in a negotiation, however, is separating out the diplomatic from the political. Diplomacy is the formal process of interaction and is usually carried out by diplomats and bureaucrats who are asked to implement a government’s policy or policies. This is different from those politicians, many of whom are also engaged in negotiations of various types but whose main job is to formulate policy (rather than carry it out). Both of these are important functions in the world of international negotiations, although they are different.

One of the other challenges in any negotiation lies in understanding the culture and perspective of the country or countries with which you are negotiating. Different countries have different negotiating styles and these must be considered in formulating a position and in determining how to approach another country. In addition, there is a strategy involved with any negotiation: whether to begin the negotiation or wait for another country to respond, how much to reveal about your own position and at what point, how much are you willing to compromise in order to reach an agreement, and, most important, what is your own desired outcome of the negotiation? These must be determined by each country in advance of the negotiation so that it will know how to begin and/or how to respond to another country’s overtures.

Stages of Negotiation

Diplomacy and negotiation represent alternatives to the use of force in the settlement of potential or actual disputes between countries. International negotiation is a phased process, predicated on expectations of reciprocity, compromise, and the search for mutually beneficial outcomes. All parties to a negotiation must prepare their positions carefully, looking for a balance between national (domestic) considerations and political realities. Simulation participants should be prepared to engage in the following stages:

Phase 1, Preparation: The preparation is the most critical part of any negotiation. Each team must prepare for the negotiation by doing research on its own position, as well as the likely position of the other teams with which you will be negotiating. Each team must set goals, that is, what do you want to achieve through the negotiation process. In the “real world,” it has been estimated that 80% of negotiations succeed or fail because of the preparation that is done prior to the time that the negotiation even begins. It should also be noted that, although this is a simulation of international negotiation, learning how to prepare – identifying the problem, doing the background research, formulating a position – is central to accomplishing any task successfully.

Phase 2, Pre-Negotiation: Based on the research and identifying your own goals, each country prepares an internal briefing or position paper that lays out the principles and objectives central to the issues under discussion. The paper should convey an understanding of each issue and the interrelationship among issue areas. In drafting this paper, attention must be paid to domestic policy needs, as well as to the likely position taken by allies and potential adversaries. The briefing paper should also include the team’s desired goals, as well as a negotiating strategy to achieve those goals. In defining the negotiating strategy, it is often best for a team to know what its own bottom line is as well as what the ideal outcome is.

Phase 3, Opening Positions: Each team’s opening message should flow from the briefing paper. Beginning on April 1, all teams present their opening or “going in” positions on-line for the benefit of other participants during the first on-line exchanges. These messages provide the basis for the start of the negotiations. All teams should remember that the opening messages set the tone for the negotiations that will follow. Once that tone has been set, it will be up to you to determine how to maintain that tone for the duration of the simulation. As you frame your opening message, it might be helpful to remember that the tougher the position you plan to take in the negotiations, the more important it is to set the right tone that will help you achieve your goals. It is also important that you remember to depersonalize and avoid framing the problem as an issue of principle that will not allow you to compromise.

Phase 4, Preparatory Negotiations: The negotiations will then proceed over a number of weeks and should be characterized by an exchange of ideas, comments and proposals. All delegations should assess their positions relative to other teams, and explore ways to form coalitions and build support for your proposals. Try to develop a common ground, that is, identify the areas that you have in common and that you can build upon, rather than focusing upon the things that are different. Remember that the objective of the negotiation process is to see whether you can work cooperatively with other countries in a way that will help you achieve the goals that you defined during the preparation phase.

Phase 5, On-line Summits: There will be one summit associated with each of the issue areas. Each summit will be multilateral (i.e., many teams will be participating in the discussion), and will be held toward the end of the simulation after teams have had the opportunity to put forward proposals and have started to build support for their position. (The tentative dates for the four summits are April 30, May 1, May 2 and May 6. The exact times will be announced.) All teams are invited to attend each of the summits; however, we realize that not all teams will have representatives at each summit. It will be helpful to teams as they formulate their own negotiating positions to know who can and cannot be there. Therefore, to facilitate the negotiation process we do ask that you confirm your participation to all teams prior to the actual summit. Teams are expected to negotiate based on an agenda that will be determined in advance of the summit. All teams will have the opportunity to suggest agenda items based on the negotiations to that time. Further, teams will have the opportunity to chair various summits as well.

During each summit, deliberations take place on the formulation of a common position and are used to see whether teams can reach agreement on proposals. These summits represent the culmination of the negotiations.

To aid you in the process, the ICONS software includes a feature called a “proposal center.” Teams can post their draft proposals in the proposal center, and then other teams can access them and respond. Using the proposal center can be an effective tool that can help you prepare for the summits.

Some Caveats: As you engage in these negotiations please remember that a simulation such as this one cannot begin to capture the full complexity of the issues, nor does it try to. Further, this exercise is structured in such a way as to limit your ability to move beyond what might be called the “pre-negotiation phase,” and into the middle- or end-games associated with concluding a real negotiation. Nonetheless, as you move from the preparation stage to defining your opening statement and into the exchange of messages and then the summits, you should be better able to understand the negotiation process, and the complexity associated with concluding any negotiation – individual, business, international – successfully.

Preparation

Each class has been assigned to represent a country, an international organization, and/or an NGO during the simulation. Within the class, you will probably be organized in teams to explore the issues for negotiation. Within that team, you will then have to do the research on the actor you are assigned to represent, the specific issues highlighted in the scenario, and the likely position of the other actors you will be interacting with during the simulation. If you are representing a country, you will begin by formulating your government’s official position on the issues. You will also have to consider the position of non-state actors or interest groups operating in your country who influence or effect your country’s policies on these issues.

Similarly, if you have been assigned to represent an international organization, like the European Union, you must take into account the fact that your policies are the result of another set of internal deliberations among the member countries. However, ultimately, each of those countries is an independent actor which will make policy based on its own interest. The goals ofthe individual countries must be balanced against the goals of the organization as a whole.

In all cases, working as a group you will formulate policies for multilateral and bilateral negotiations. These negotiations might be government to government, NGO to NGO, NGO to government, or country to organization, depending on the country and the issue addressed. While the focus of the exercise is multilateral, participants should keep in mind that fact that bilateral dialogue is also an effective component of negotiations. The determination of when to pursue bilateral versus multilateral discussion must be part of each team’s negotiating strategy. Further, remember that the press is an actor in this simulation and can be used to help further your negotiations and goals, or to thwart progress.

Research: The key to a successful simulation is the research that each team does both prior to the start of the simulation, and on an ongoing basis once the simulation gets underway. All teams need a thorough understanding of their own actor’s policies, as well as the policies of the other countries with which they will be negotiating. Further, all teams need to understand which non-state actors are important, and how they will try to influence policy decisions. Because this is a technology-based exercise, the more you can rely on technology for your research the better. Using Internet and the World Wide Web will allow you to access primary documents from the actor that you are representing, and the official positions of the actors with which you will be negotiating. You are urged to take advantage of that capability which will enable you to arrive at a more realistic depiction of your actor’s policies than you would simply by relying on US-based documents alone.

Communications

A special simulation community will be created to facilitate communication among teams during the simulation. Through this community, you will be able to communicate with all participants, one of more individual teams, and with SIMCON. You will also use a special conference sector of the community for the scheduled summit meetings.

Regular e-mail: The backbone of your negotiations should be the “regular mail.” Regular mail can be accessed at any time, and should be checked daily. There should be a steady flow of messages from the start of the simulation as each country begins to establish ties and opens communications with other countries. As is the case with “real world” conferences and summit meetings, those messages that flow behind the scenes set the stage for what will take place during the on-line summit conferences and will determine what, if anything, will be accomplished during the limited time of those conferences. You should be prepared to begin sending your regular mail messages as of April 1.

Real-time conferencing (summits): The on-line summits will last 90 minutes each, and will cover specific topics. All teams are invited to attend each summit – the schedule for each of the summits will be announced by SIMCON. The agenda of each summit is set and distributed in advance, and will grow from the course of the negotiations to that time. Each team will have the chance to suggest agenda items and some will have the opportunity to chair a summit. The on-line conferences are like a real summit meeting where heads of state actually meet to hammer out specific details of an issues following behind-the-scenes preparation. The more effective your negotiations via regular mail prior to the summit, the more successful the summit meetings will be.

Getting Started

Many teams feel a bit uncertain as to how to start. Some teams wait for other countries to take the lead. This can create an unrealistic policy atmosphere, as it is often in a team’s best interest to put forward proposals that will be beneficial to it, rather than wait and have to respond to other actors’ initiatives. From the beginning of the simulation, you should be prepared to communicate your proposals to other teams on a range of issues via “regular mail.” And please remember to submit your position/briefing paper to SIMCON prior to the start of the simulation.

To help you get started on the issues, you might want to focus on the section entitled

“Questions for Consideration” which is included at the end of each issue-case. Please refer to this for guidance on the sorts of questions and topics that might arise during the simulation. However, do not feel that you must be confined to just the issues raised here. Once you have done your research and understand your country’s position on the issues, you might arrive at additional issues that are also appropriate topics for negotiation.

It is often the case that the more messages you send, the more responses you are likely to get. Be specific, respond to messages in a timely fashion, and be sure to leave room to negotiate!

“Real World” Applications

Although this is a simulation of events in the international system, many of the lessons learned have practical applications that go far beyond the classroom. This exercise will be more valuable if all participants realize that they are learning important lessons about things in addition to current international issues:

First, the simulation teaches about the process of negotiation, which is part of every aspect of life. While the focus here is on negotiations among and between countries, in fact, the same principles apply to negotiations between spouses, parent and child, boss and employee, and among friends. Central to this is the ability to think through a position clearly, and then know how to articulate it. In other words, the ability to communicate clearly is an important tool not only in this simulation, but in the world beyond the classroom as well.

Second, this program is technology based, something that is a critical part of our world today. Remember that you are using Internet and Web technology to send and receive messages and to do research for the simulation. But, again, the applications of the technology are transferable beyond the bounds of this program. Studies have shown that employers are looking for employees who know and can use current technology for research, writing, and communication. Mastering this skill in an environment such as this simulation will allow you to apply that knowledge that will help you get a job or advance within a job situation.

Third, the basis of this program is the written word, and learning to think critically and analytically. These are skills necessary to advance in the work place as well as your educational career and throughout life. As noted above, the ability to communicate ideas clearly and concisely is valued in the work place as well as in school. And, since virtually everything in this simulation is tied to the ability to communicate complex ideas, you will be practicing this skill throughout the simulation.

Fourth, the simulation requires you to work in teams, another critical skill required in the “real world.” There is virtually no job that allows people to work in isolation; rather, people are expected to be able to work and learn together. Collaborative learning is a skill that requires practice. Participating in this simulation will give you a framework within which to hone that skill.

Finally, the simulation focuses on contemporary international events and the interrelationship among them. This also means that you must make connections across traditional disciplinary approaches. For example, although one of the issues is explicitly economic in nature, you must understand the political and cultural context within which that issue is addressed in the country that you are representing. The particular position taken by any country is a function of its history as well, and its historical relationship with other countries.

In addition to thinking across disciplines, in a world that is increasingly interdependent and interconnected, it is impossible to be considered truly “educated” unless you are aware of important global issues and the different perspectives that countries have on those issues. Similarly, understanding those different country perspectives should help clarify the position that others within your own community might have. And that, too, is part of what it means to be “educated” in the world today.

The Simulation Scenario[4]

General International Conditions

The world was changed dramatically on September 11, 2001 when terrorists commandeered four aircraft and used them as weapons to crash into the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Although one of the four aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania, there seems to be little doubt that that one, too, was targeting a building in Washington, D.C. Although the targets were directed at the United States, citizens of all countries were victims of the attacks, either as they worked in offices in one of the targeted buildings, or as passengers on one of the doomed planes. Further, the apparent vulnerability of the United States raised serious questions about whether any country or people can be safe from terrorism.

The result of the attack initially was an outpouring of grief and sorrow, followed by the desire to respond to the attacks. President George W. Bush quickly declared a “war on terrorism,” and began to put together a military coalition to locate the terrorist cell(s) responsible and destroy it. The war on terrorism and the global coalition that resulted is a radical shift in the foreign policy that the Bush administration appeared to pursue upon taking office when the major theme was one of isolationism and the desire to “go it alone.” For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), invoked Article 5 of its treaty, which states that an attack on any NATO member on its home territory is to be considered an attack on all, and paves the way for a NATO military response. What has been interesting is that President Bush has chosen not to go the NATO route for an alliance-wide response, preferring instead to build a military coalition on a country-by-country basis, relying especially on NATO-ally Great Britain for military and political support.

But the road to building the coalition was not always an easy one. Some of the US’s coalition partners, especially those in the Middle East, asked for proof of responsibility before signing on to the military mission. Even when that was provided, the strength of the coalition is tenuous, especially if, as predicted, the United States seeks to expand the “war on terrorism” beyond the borders of Afghanistan. In fact, one of the major tasks facing the United States in the coming months will be to hold that coalition together, especially as the immediacy of September 11 fades, and victory against the Taliban declared.

Although it was not a NATO mission, the European allies, especially the British, remained the staunchest supporters of the US and its position. British Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly took the lead, traveling around the world shoring up support for the coalition. Even German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder took a political risk when he brought to the German Parliament a proposal for German troops to be involved, and he was able to get the support of the governing coalition to do so.

Despite the success of the coalition and its declaration of war on terrorism, other events intervened that deflected the attention of the US and its other partners. The violence between Israel and the Palestinians escalated as Palestinian extremists engaged in suicide missions that results in the deaths of Israeli civilians. The Israeli government retaliated with increased ferocity, and called into question the viability of the leadership of Yasir Arafat. A US-dispached mediator returned to Washington in December with little evidence that any progress to end the violence had been made. Although he returned to the region again in January, there is little hope for a settlement at this time.

In addition, tensions escalated between India and Pakistan after a series of terrorist attacks in India suggested that a radical fringe group supporting independence for Kashmir was behind it. In response, India recalled its ambassador to Pakistan and ended bus and train service between the two countries. Of greater concern to the United States is the fear that India will cross the “line of control” into the portion of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan where India claims that militant Islamic groups who might be behind the attacks have their training bases. Given the critical role that Pakistan has been playing, neither the United States nor any of the other coalition partners could afford to have those tensions escalate into armed conflict. If India and Pakistan were to go to war, then the Pakistani troops that have been guarding the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan would likely be redeployed to defend the border with India, which could undermine the efforts of the war on terrorism. India has been using the latest attacks to pressure the United States to extend its “war on terrorism” to include several Pakistani extremist groups.

Months after September 11, the repercussions of the attacks continue to be felt globally in other ways as well. In an era characterized by “globalization” and the growing interrelationship among countries the world, which was already heading toward economic downturn, went into a global recession after and as a result of September 11. The first industries to be hit were the airline and tourism-related ones, as people became increasingly hesitant to fly or even to leave their homes unless they absolutely had to. The United States Congress responded with a multi-billion dollar bail-out of the American carriers affected, many of which had been in decline prior to these events. However, non-US carriers felt the impact as well, and a number of them, including Sabena Belgian airlines and some of the smaller Canadian carriers went out of business. There were significant trickle-down effects as well as airlines cancelled orders for new air craft, which had a direct effect on large manufacturers such as Boeing, but also smaller companies that make equipment also used on the air craft.

In the United States, the economic slow-down that had started before September 11 grew quickly as economic growth slowed even further and unemployment numbers rose. In addition to the most immediate impact of the slowing which was felt in New York because of the number of companies that were affected directly by September 11, the rest of the country was hit as well. After a period of unity, the slowdown in the economy contributed to a resurgence of partisan politics as the two parties debated the best way to get the country moving again. Congress left for its winter recess without any agreed-upon solution.

As the primary international economic engine, the economic slow-down in the United States had a direct impact on other countries as well, many of which had already been struggling.

Stressing the interrelations among nations, one of the most consistent points that President Bush made since taking office was the importance of increasing free trade patterns. This was a major theme at his early meeting with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox, it was repeated during Bush’s trip to Europe in June 2001, and reprised during his brief trip to China in October 2001 for the meeting of the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized nations. To help assuage both domestic and international concerns, the US Trade Representative has elaborated that the trade measures laid out by the President would, of course, be accompanied by other measures to boost labor and environmental standards. Those assurances help persuade the Congress to give the President “fast track” authority to negotiate trade pacts, which Bush claimed to be especially important in getting the global economy moving again after September 11. Nonetheless, many countries, including the European allies, remain concerned that the United States will take the opportunity to pursue a protectionist agenda that will come at the expense of its trading partners.

Despite their close ties fighting terrorism, in many ways the United States and the countries of Europe continue to have a difficult relationship, as the goals of the EU have often run directly counter to those of the United States. The United States and the EU are the two largest economies in the world which together account for about half of the entire global economy. The EU and US also have the greatest bilateral and trade relationship, with transatlantic flows of trade and investment amounting to about $1 billion per day. Further, through NATO these countries are also military allies, and hold common political values as well as strong cultural ties. Despite all these factors, the European allies continue to look with suspicion upon the United States and remain unclear as to the goals and priorities of the Bush administration and, more important, how changes in US foreign, defense and economic policies will affect them.

On the whole, though, the countries of the EU appear to be thriving. The economic recession that had plagued many of the EU countries in the mid-90's generally has receded to be replaced by a feeling of optimism and prosperity. Although unemployment remains relatively high in some countries, notably Germany and France, the introduction of the euro as the common currency as of January 2002 has reinforced the belief that economic union is a reality. Despite a precipitous fall in the value of the euro against the dollar during the early part of 2000, the economies of most of the individual countries of Europe remain strong and the European leaders are optimistic about the future. That optimism was reinforced by the smooth transition to the euro from the individual currencies and by a rise in the value of the euro.

The EU summit held in Nice, France in December 2000, followed by the summit of June 2001 illustrated clearly where the lines of division among the EU countries were. The EU faced a number of major issues going into its recent summit including governance issues (as indicated by voting and veto power within the commission), increasing the membership of the EU, and defense, specifically creating an EU “defense identity” that would complement NATO and would act in cases where NATO (or the United States) is reluctant to. Although EU members claim that the “Euro-corps” will not undermine NATO, the suggestion that such a military bloc be created provoked a strong response from the United States, which claims that there really is no need for such an organization. The Nice summit, however, also raised for discussion a “Charter of Fundamental Rights,” which, if and/or when adopted, outlines 54 rights pertaining to a range from rights of workers, to child labor, to environmental protection. Because of strong objection from Britain and Ireland, the EU members agreed that it will not be included as a legally-binding treaty at this time, but that it should and will be used as a “showcase” of basic rights.

One of the points that became apparent to the world during the series of international trade meetings over the past two years was the growing international importance of the countries of Latin and South America in the global system. For example, even though it was suffering economically just a few years ago, Brazil is now the world’s ninth-largest economy. A series of economic liberalization measures, including ensuring greater access to imported goods, more efficient industries coupled with increased privatization, and opening many of its markets have all benefitted the country economically as well as securing a place for Brazil internationally. Nonetheless, the economic fault lines in South America are fairly close to the surface. The dramatic decline in the economic situation in Argentina, earlier seen as another of the potential economic powerhouses of that region, raised questions about how enduring economic growth and stability really is. Further, that economic situation was accompanied by political instability; five men assumed the presidency only to step down within a period of months. While predictions are that the economic and political instability will not spread to neighboring Brazil, the situation in Argentina was seen by many as a “wake-up call” and a reminder of how interrelated the economic and political situations really are.

Mexico, after rebounding from the economic crises that plagued the country just a few years ago, started to fall into recession in 2001 as well. In another example of the impact of the interrelationship between countries, the economic forecast going into 2001 proved to be far more optimistic than the reality as Mexico, too, was directly affected by the economic slow-down in the United States. In 1999, the low price of oil, Mexico’s largest single export, and jitters over a devaluation of currency in Brazil triggered a round of economic instability. However, inflationary fears subsided when investment remained strong and the central bank held fast to its restrictive monetary policy. In 2000, Mexico’s economy was slowing but relatively stable, but it was clear that the outlook for 2001 was tied to the United States, a major trading partner. As the economy in the United States started to slow, coupled with a number of domestic factors, it had a direct impact on Mexico which looked like it would end the year far weaker economically than expected. This, in turn, has implications for President Fox.

The July 2000 election of Vicente Fox in Mexico was heralded by the United States and other democracies as a watershed event for Mexico. This positive feeling was reinforced when President Bush chose to meet with President Fox in Mexico as his first “official” international meeting after assuming the office. Both leaders stressed the close trade and economic ties between the two countries, and reaffirmed the need to continue this important relationship. However, the economic instability that Mexico appears to be facing in part because of contagion from the United States could undermine President Fox’s success as well as the relationship between the two nations.

In addition, Mexico continues to be plagued by corruption, much of it tied to illegal drugs. This is not a new problem, but one that has reached epidemic proportions, especially in

the state of Baja that borders the United States.[5] The issue of illegal migration from Mexico into the United States has also been seen as one that could cause tensions between these two nations. The crackdown at the border following September 11, which was designed to stop terrorists from entering the US illegally, also has had a direct impact on the economy of Mexico. Long lines and detailed inspections have deterred tourists and had a direct impact on those who work legally in the other country, regardless of whether that is Mexico or the US. This, too, has contributed to tensions as well as economic slow-down in the areas on both sides of the border.

Fears that porous borders allowed the terrorists to move about freely, including entering the United States, contributed to a desire in many countries in addition to the United States to reverse the trends of the past few years and start to close their borders, or at least scrutinize those entering more closely. “Racial profiling” became an issue, as people fitting certain ethnic profiles were stopped as they tried to leave one country and enter another. At a time when many of the developed countries have become dependent upon those from the developing world for both skilled and unskilled labor, this has posed another – economic – problem, i.e., how to determine who should and should not be admitted to a country and permitted to stay.

The fears and vulnerability that many countries were already feeling were exacerbated when anthrax-infused letters were found distributed to members of Congress and the news media in the United States. The apparent ease with which this bio-terrorism agent was found and distributed raised fundamental questions about the safety of the food and water supply and how to protect them.

Despite the need for the coalition against terrorism to hold together, the Bush administration sent notice to the international system that the US would continue to pursue an independent course of action in terms of foreign and defense policy. This has put the United States in a position where it stands in opposition to even its staunchest allies on many foreign policy and international issues. Before September 11, for example, the EU approved (and the US did not), the creation of an International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the ban on antipersonnel land mines and the biodiversity treaty. In all these cases, the only other democratic nations that shared the US position were Israel and India. Instead, the US’s views were held by the same countries the United States has declared as “outlaw”states, such as Libya, Iraq and Iran. Although the United States’ position on these issues has not changed since September 11, it now needs the support of many of those countries whose views it disregarded earlier.

Following up on a campaign pledge to build a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, in December 2001 President Bush gave notice that the United States would withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so that work on that defense system could go forward. While Russian President Putin indicated his displeasure with that decision, it quickly became clear that there was little he could – or would – do. With the Russian economy in decline and Putin starting to shore up his own position politically, it was important that Putin appear to remain an ally of Bush. And, many speculate, Putin will extract a price from the United States for his loyalty

Putin has proven to be a skillful politician who has worked hard to develop ties with the major leaders of the West. In addition to a number of bilateral meetings with President Bush, Putin has met with Prime Minister Blair many times, further securing his position as a major leader in the world today. From the time that Russia indicated its willingness to work with the West by sending its troops first to Bosnia and then to Kosovo as part of NATO-led peacekeeping missions, first Yeltsin and now Putin have reinforced the idea that Russia is part of the “major powers” of the West and needs to be consulted and included. At a time when there is discussion of NATO expanding to include the Baltic countries (over Russian objections), Putin has been negotiating ways to ensure that Russia is consulted more broadly in any NATO decision.

The political and security as well as economic situation across all of Asia remains fluid and potentially unstable at this time as well. In the Philippines, ousted President Joseph Estrada was arrested at the end of April 2001 on charges of economic corruption. Despite pro-Estrada demonstrations, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyoa has managed to remain in control, in part by winning and keeping the support of the military. Nonetheless, the country suffers from severe problems that could, potentially, lead to unrest quickly. More than 80% of the population is considered either “poor” or working class whose support the President will need if she is to remain in power. Further, the top 10% of the population earned 24 times more than the bottom 10%, a significant “income gap.” President Arroyo’s support is coming from the military, and from the middle and upper classes and is tenuous. Muslim extremist groups that exist in primarily the southern parts of the Philippines have become more aggressive, even taking US missionaries prisoner. While the United States has not yet suggested that this is to become an extension of the war on terrorism, there is little doubt that extremist groups in this country, Indonesia, Malaysia and other parts of Asia have become emboldened by the attacks on the United States.

The situation in Japan had been settling down, at least prior to September 11. After a period of political and economic instability, in April 2001 Junichiro Koizumi was elected to head the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and was then made the Prime Minister of Japan. Koizumi, who is seen as a reformer, inherited a difficult situation. Public debt was close to 130% of GDP, economic growth was down, and unemployment was at near-record high levels. Not only has this had a negative impact domestically, but the instability has frightened foreign investors who are essential to Japan’s economy. Following years of failed economic policies and the inability of his immediate predecessor, Yoshiro Mori, to address the situation, Koizumi is under pressure to turn things around and to live up to his reputation as a reformer. Koizumi has pledged to push through economic reforms necessary for Japan’s recovery, and polls indicate that the public is in support. However, it remains unclear just how much the public really is willing to accept, especially as Koizumi moves forward with his plans for deregulation of the economy, which could directly hurt many of those small businesses that have long looked to the government for protection. Furthermore, critics also charge that many of Koizumi’s plans seem vague and unfocused. But supporters are quick to point out that policies enacted to date have not been successful and in Koizumi the public has a leader who has made it clear that he does have a plan, and that he is not afraid to take action in support of economic recovery, even if those decisions might be politically difficult.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to regional stability in Asia will come from China, a country that took advantage of a new US president in order to flex its international muscles. The tensions between the US and China over the spy plane incident, Taiwan policy, missile defense and a host of other issues could potentially threaten China’s relations with the United States and other countries in the West. On March 6, 2001, China announced an increase of 18% in its defense budget, the largest increase in more than twenty years.[6] Although the official reason is that China must protect itself against US aggression, this move sent an unambiguous signal to the countries of the region as well as the West that China is again asserting its role as a leader in Asia and that the United States cannot “bully” China. The independence of China was also asserted when China and Russia signed a Treaty of Friendship, their first since the Sino-Soviet split of the 1950s. This move was seen by many as a direct diplomatic affront to the Untied States.

Despite all that, China finally realized its goal of being admitted to the WTO. This was important economically as well as symbolically as it was the first major step that this country has taken to integrate its own economy with that of the capitalist west since the People’s Republic of China was created more than 50 years ago. The decision to join was the result of intense debate internally, as the reformers who pushed for membership had to fight with the conservative “old guard.” But the lowering of tariffs and other barriers to China’s markets that were a condition for membership bring with them potential dangers of increased unemployment and even the possibility of a backlash against the west if economic benefits are not seen quickly.

Perhaps the greatest threat to international stability, however, is coming from the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. It appears ironic to many that the “war on terrorism” has provided part of the rationale for the latest tensions between these two adversaries. When a small group of Pakistani extremists were identified as the source of the explosion at the Indian parliament on December 13, the Indian government used President Bush’s rhetoric about the need to confront terrorism in all parts of the world as the basis for its own military build-up. Despite a perfunctory meeting between the heads of state of the two nations as part of a regional summit in Nepal early in January, it remains clear that the hostility is so deep-seated that the current situation will not be resolved easily. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have tried to mediate; however, neither side seems willing to compromise at this time and are massing troops along the border.

In short, the 21^st century will pose new and perhaps greater challenges to foreign policy decision makers. Unlike the Cold War era, when most issues were premised on competition between West and East, the United States versus the Soviet Union and democracy versus communism, the post Cold War international system has no single framework to guide it. Economic strength has replaced military might as an indicator of power, and human rights issues have become important components of foreign policy. However, political and military issues remain and, as September 11 illustrated, potentially are more dangerous to international peace and well-being.

Security: Definition of “Terrorism”

Synopsis

One of the major issues facing the international community in the wake of the events of September 11 is what exactly is meant by “terrorism”? This is not a new problem; rather, what one country or group might refer to as “terrorism” another might see as fighting for freedom, or heroic groups or individuals resorting to extreme measures in order to make their point. Further, the international community has never reached agreement on how terrorists should be treated (e.g., are they international outlaws? traitors? war criminals? etc.) because the definition should, technically, determine the types of trials that an apprehended terrorist will have and the punishment meted out. In addition, the international community has not agreed on whether there is a difference between so-called “state sponsored”terrorism versus a rogue group, such as the Al Qaeda, which acts outside any state sanctions and which moves across borders.

Trying to determine how to define terrorism is not new. However, the events of September 11 have made the discussion and determination of what terrorism is especially relevant.

The Issues

In December 1994, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designed to outline measures that would help eliminate international terrorism.[7] The desire to do something was prompted by general concern about an increase in acts of terrorism and the perception of growing extremism in many parts of the world. Further, many countries saw a direct link between terrorist groups and other international criminal acts, such as drug trafficking and the growth of paramilitary groups that undermine basic human rights. With that background, the countries of the international system saw the need to take action that would contribute to the elimination of international terrorism as well as control some of the other illegal acts that were perceived to be part of and supporting terrorism.

This resolution clearly outlined actions that states individually as well as collectively through organizations such as the UN should take to help combat international terrorism. Under the UN charter as well as international law, states were told, among other things, that they must:

1) “refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, financing or encouraging terrorist activities...”

2) “ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts...”

3) “cooperate with one another in exchanging relevant information concerning the prevention and combating of terrorism...” and

4) “before granting asylum...ensuring that the asylum seeker has not engaged in terrorist acts....”[8]

The resolution defines what is meant by “terrorism,” as the following: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” While this resolution was approved, not all states agreed with its terms or even the definition.

The issue of international terrorism was again addressed by the General Assembly in November 2000. However, in this case some countries, notably Syria and Lebanon, claimed that a distinction needs to be made between “terrorism” and “actions of liberation movements,” which they argued should fall outside the definition of terrorism. Their position was supported by Cuba, but also Pakistan. Those who lead the opposition to this position were Israel and the United States.

This distinction underlines the dilemma facing countries today as they try to determine what terrorism is as a prelude to determining how to address it. In many ways, it was not only September 11 but the US response to the attacks that has catapulted this issue to the top of the international agenda. In his address to the Congress following the September 11 attacks, President Bush said that “...any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”[9] The message that the President was sending was clear: the American campaign against terrorism would not stop with Afghanistan but would be extended to include any country that was known to harbor terrorists.

But this blanket-type statement also carries with it certain problems, especially in the absence of a single definition of terrorism. For example, some countries call their enemies “terrorists,” especially when those enemies are tied to internal movements of some type. As former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski notes, “By declaring war against an undifferentiated, undefined and fundamentally vague phenomenon like global terrorism, or terrorism with global reach, we in a sense opened the gates to a lot of countries to leap into this exercise on our backs. They are all declaring whoever their enemy is to be a terrorist, and then claiming moral justification for doing whatever they decide to do.”[10]

Brzezinski’s concerns have proven to be well-founded. For example, in response to a UN Security Council resolution requiring all UN members to report on measures against terrorism, Syria, ranked one of the 10 least democratic countries, offered the assurance that “[Syria] has always condemned terrorism in all its forms.” Accompanying this statement, however, was the reminder that Syria (as well as most other Arab countries) distinguishes between terrorism and the “legitimate struggle against foreign occupation,” such as the actions that the Palestinians, including extremist groups such as Hamas, might take against Israel.

The Bush statement has also resulted in grudging US support for Israel and India, both of which have had long-term problems with “terrorism.” Where in the past, the United States has urged Israel to be restrained in its responses to suicide attacks, Washington now has little choice but to tell the government to do whatever it feels is necessary. Similarly, not only has the United States had to take the same tack with India, but India is using the United States as an example to justify its own military buildup against Pakistan. One American political analyst was quoted as saying that the problem now is that “What the Indians are trying to do, what Israel is doing, is to persuade Bush that their situation is no different than ours. How can we ask the Israelis or the Indians now to exercise restraint?”[11]

It is clear that the issue of how to define terrorism and what the international community should do about it has become especially relevant, not only because of the events of September 11, but because of subsequent events as well. It is incumbent upon all countries to determine how to define terrorism and, from that starting point, decide what are legitimate means of addressing terrorism.

To do so, the United Nations has convened a committee of countries to begin the process of defining the term. Unlike the resolution passed in 1994, at this juncture the goal is simply to see whether countries can reach agreement on what is meant by “terrorism,” and, from that beginning point, see whether they can agree upon ways to address it and, eventually, eliminate it. The working group of countries has been selected because they represent a range of types of countries in different parts of the world. All perspectives and ideas will be considered. But reaching agreement is the ultimate goal.

Questions for Consideration

1) Can countries reach agreement on a definition of the concept of “terrorism”?

2) Is or should there be a difference between so-called “state sponsored”terrorism, versus a rogue group, such as the Al Qaeda, which acts outside any state sanctions and which moves across borders?

3) If agreement can be reached on what terrorism is, then what types of sanctions or punishments should be imposed on countries that support or harbor terrorists?

Global Economics: Recovery from Global Recession

Synopsis

To many observers, the decade following the end of the Cold War was the era of “globalization,” characterized by growing interaction and interrelationships among countries. Globalization was driven by a “borderless world,” in which transactions moved electronically, capital flowed freely, and people quickly crossed borders from one country to another. In fact, “globalization entails a dense web of cross- border relationships that range from the very evident (the spread of disease) to the very subtle (the spread of ideas).”[12]

While globalization has always had its critics, even its staunchest supporters were silenced by the events of September 11 and the economic downturn that followed. In a world in which countries are becoming increasingly interdependent, recession in one, especially an economic power like the United States, can quickly spread to other countries and, eventually, have a detrimental impact on most countries and, in fact, the whole international economic system.

The dilemma now facing the countries of the international system is what actions can they take that will help move the world out of global recession and to try to protect themselves from global recession in the future.

The Issues

Although it has been convenient to identify September 11 as the date at which the global recession started, the reality is that the signs were there at least a year earlier. As early as spring 2000 a downturn in stock markets world wide started to fall as the technology bubble, which had been driving much of the economic success, burst. To the United States, which was coming out of an unprecedented period of economic growth, the slowdown and recession seemed to hit especially hard. It has been estimated that more than 1.6 million Americans will have lost their jobs as a direct (or indirect) result of September 11, contributing to an increase in the overall rate of unemployment. Further, a tax cut enacted early in the Bush administration which was supposed to stimulate the economy only made the situation worse by shrinking the amount of money in the US government coffers. The impact of the economic recession has already been felt by Mexico and Canada, the US’s major trading partners.

The world is facing global recession for the first time in more than 20 years. (Here, recession is defined as a rate of growth that falls below 2.5% annually, which the International Monetary Fund defines as the “breaking point” between economic progress and downturn.[13]) The United States, Japan and much of Europe all faced economic slump, the first time since the oil shocks of the early 1970s that all experienced economic downturn simultaneously. At the end of 2001, the situation in Germany was becoming exceptionally grim, with the rate of unemployment expected to reach more than 10%. With economic integration becoming a reality, the rest of the EU remains concerned about the likely contagion effects from Germany although the euro is holding against the dollar, and the economy of the UK appears to be remaining strong. In South America, Argentina has been facing economic instability that threatened to spill-over and infect neighboring Brazil. Furthermore, the Argentine government, woefully unprepared for the crisis, seemed to break down completely.

The recession of 2001 must be seen in contrast to the exceptional economic growth of the mid-to-late 1990s, culminating in 2000. In retrospect, 1999-2000 was characterized by robust growth, a deepening of global integration and record gains in most indicators of international exchange. For example, the value of world merchandise exports increased by more than 12% and foreign direct investment went up to $1.27 trillion in that year, compared to $1.08 trillion the year before.[14] And much of this investment was the result of corporations buying or merging with companies in other countries, further contributing to both “globalization” and the growth of real multi-national corporations.

The strong global economy of the 1990s had a number of other consequences as well. Global tourism showed strong economic growth, with Asia and the Pacific region seeing the greatest increase. International communication and connectivity was facilitated by the growth of Internet hosts and, with that, increased Internet usage. And cross-border trade grew by nearly 13% in 2000, a record increase. All of these are areas that have been directly affected by the bursting of the economic bubble.

Global economic growth in 2000 had other manifestations as well. For example, Russia as well as Peru and Vietnam were invited to join the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, thereby further integrating these countries into the global economic community. China joined the World Trade Organization, realizing a long-held goal, and Russia, which now has observer status, is likely to join in the near-term as well. In short, levels of global integration reached new highs in 2000 and into 2001, a trend that brought with it benefits for all countries.

Furthermore, global integration carries with it benefits beyond just economic advantages. For example, a study of the “Globalization Index” revealed that the world’s most globalized countries also tend to have greater income equality than those that are less globalized. More global countries tend to enjoy greater political freedom, civil liberties and political rights than the less global do.[15] In short, the more “globalized” a country is, the more likely it is to be politically open, educated and technologically wired, as well as economically engaged internationally on any number of dimensions.

However, globalization and economic interdependence bring with them disadvantages as well. The interrelationship among countries means that if and/or when one of the “major” countries suffers from an economic setback of some kind, it will directly affect other countries. This interrelationship was seen clearly with the Asia economic crisis of 1997, which started in Thailand and quickly spread throughout all of Asia and, ultimately, affected most other countries with which Asia traded or had relationships. The increase in globalization in the subsequent years only served to exacerbate this situation. Further, the relationships that currently exist also mean that it is harder for countries to move out of recession.

The behavior of multi-national corporations offer some insight into the patterns of integration and the impact of that integration. Companies often react to economic downturn in one of the major markets, such as the United States, by cutting investments in general. Thus, the company might respond not by cutting its investments in the United States per se, but rather, perhaps in Germany or Brazil. This suggests that companies react to economic changes globally and with a broader perspective than simply looking at any single country. This also means that companies are less likely to merge with or acquire other companies, further contributing to economic slowdown in all countries in which that corporation does business. By the end of 2001, mergers and acquisitions were down 55% compared with 2000, for example.[16]

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported at the end of November that because no major economy has remained vibrant, that it is likely that its 30 member nations would experience reduced output for the second half of the year. The OECD also reduced its growth forecast for 2002 to 1%, down from the 3% originally predicted.[17]

Some of the countries that have kept their markets most open and their currencies convertible, such as Mexico, Taiwan and Argentina, appear to be suffering the most. In contrast, China, India and Russia, which have been much more cautious about integrating into the global economy, have suffered relatively less. So while there is much to be said for globalization and integration, the risks are becoming much clearer.

The economic interdependence that has contributed to global recession also suggest that it is incumbent upon countries, working together, to begin to find a way to address the situation and to try to insure that it does not repeat itself. Under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, a working group has been convened to see whether they can arrive at recommendations for actions that can help address the current economic situation. They are charged specifically with the task of arriving at actions that they can present to the broader world community for discussion. While all acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to ensure that global recession will not happen in the future, most governments would also admit that there are measures that they can take to get the global economy moving again, and safeguards that they can put into place in order to afford some protections for the future.

Questions for Consideration

1) Can countries agree on specific actions that they can take to move the world out of global recession? Should countries begin by enacting measures nationally, or begin by trying to confront the problem on a global scale?

2) If countries can reach agreement on such measures, how can they guarantee that countries will comply with those measures?

3) Recognizing the reality of a globalized world, what safeguards can countries put into place to try to protect against a global economic recession in the future?

Human Rights: Movement of People

Synopsis

Different countries have different labor needs. In a world that is becoming increasingly interdependent economically, therefore, it seems only logical that countries look to one another to augment their own supply. For example, many of the developed countries, such as the United States and the countries of the EU, rely upon workers from the less developed countries (often former colonies, in the case of Western Europe, or neighboring Mexico for the United States), to do the menial jobs that their own citizens don’t want or won’t do. In addition, the developed countries are looking to other countries to supply skilled technicians necessary for businesses reliant upon information technology. And the open borders that often come with the creation and growth of free trade zones have made the migration of workers from country to country even easier.

Further, there has been an increase in the number of students who choose to study in another country, some of whom choose to stay long after their visas expire. Again, while most are legitimate students who are seeking only to improve their own opportunities, there are some who take advantage of the access that they gain to do damage to another country.

One of the lessons of September 11 is that it can be too easy to move from country to country. Open borders mean that terrorists can easily cross from one country to another virtually undetected. And, unless all countries agree to the same set of standards at their borders and regarding immigrants and migrants, the possibility exists that this situation will remain

In the wake of September 11, an international working group has been established to make recommendations to the international system regarding standards that might be set that would both ensure civil liberties, but also provide a measure of protection.

The Issues

Many countries are aware of the fact that their economic security depends, to some extent, on the migration of workers from other countries. Those workers, in turn, see the opportunities that come from migrating. The Congress of the United States, for example, has been pushing for legislation that would let more skilled foreign workers into the United States. The proliferation of high-tech software companies has increased demand for software engineers and other highly trained workers. With a shortage of such skilled workers already in the United States, US companies have had to look elsewhere, such as Asia, in order to meet the demand. For many of these skilled technicians, working in the United States will guarantee financial security not only for them, but for their families back home as well. These workers often choose to stay in the United States for a few years, sending money back home, and then they return to their home countries with experience, expertise and savings that they can invest and that they could not have gotten had they remained at home.

The United States is aware that, if passed, such legislation has a down-side as well. In addition to fighting with unions that want to limit the migration of foreign workers for obvious reasons, it is hard to specify that some workers can be allowed into the country, while others cannot. For example, there are an estimated 500,000 workers from Central and South America and the Caribbean who emigrated to the United States, often illegally, and who are now employed in menial jobs and doing manual labor.[18] The economies of agricultural states such as Texas and California depend on migrant workers to pick their crops. But proposed legislation, coupled with increased pressure to ensure basic rights for migrant workers, could potentially damage the economies of these states which depend upon the cheap labor of the often-illegal migrants. Further, since September 11, these groups are looked upon with increased suspicion.

The rights and protections of migrant workers (whether internal or external) and immigrants is a global problem. However, it has to be balanced against the need to protect countries from the possibility of terrorists coming into those countries under the guise of “workers” or “students.” Admittedly, it is difficult to balance individual rights and liberties of those who are in another country legitimately or for legitimate purposes with the need to ensure the protection of all citizens.

In addition to migrant workers, countries are facing much the same dilemma when dealing with students. Student exchange is a popular way for students from the “developed” countries, such as the United States, Europe and Asia to learn about another country, master a foreign language, and learn more about themselves by spending a semester or a year in a different country. Many students take the opportunity to do graduate study in another country as a way of taking advantage of the specific areas of expertise that that country offers and that they could not get at home. There are many examples of students from China and India, for example, studying science and math in the United States and England. And a number of students from the Middle East have turned to the United States and to the other colonial powers, such as France and England, to get advanced training and degrees.

Most universities encourage such exchanges for any number of reasons. And the students, in turn, enter the country on limited-duration student visas. Many return home once their visa is up and their education is over. That contributes to a more educated work force at home, which is important especially to the countries of the developing world. However, others choose not to return; some stay and get jobs in their adopted country, once their education ends for reasons noted above. Others simply remain in the country illegally. It is this group, especially those of Arab and Muslim descent, who have been subject to the most intense scrutiny since September 11.

Different countries have chosen to deal with foreigners in various ways, both before and after September 11. The Japanese police, for example, have wide powers of arrest and interrogation. All people must register with local authorities and, until a few years ago, this included fingerprinting all foreign residents. Since domestic security has always been tight, Japan’s policies or legislation are unlikely to change after September 11.

Britain, which has had a long history of dealing with terrorism, has long had among the strictest set of anti-terrorism laws that affect foreigners as well as nationals. For example, since the Prevention of Terrorism Act passed in 1974, the police are allowed to detain suspected suspects for up to a week without charging them. The government recently extended the law to cover terrorists planning attacks abroad (e.g., those associated with the attacks on the United States). The government is also considering introducing compulsory identity cards. But some of these measures run directly counter to the British Human Rights Act, which was specifically designed to help guarantee the protection of all peoples. But some of the measures currently under consideration by Britain are coming up against opposition by civil rights groups within England as well as parts of the EU.

Germany, too, has a history of being tough on political extremists of any type due, in part, to its need to crack down on neo-Nazis. Germans do have identity cards that they must carry. However, the government is limited by law in its ability to pass on any personal data. Further, Germany has traditionally been tolerant of any group claiming a religious basis, such as Islamic fundamentalists, although it is possible that the special status of religious groups will be eliminated as an effect of September 11.

In France, Spain and Italy failing to produce an identity card when asked can result in arrest, especially of foreigners. The Spanish secret service has monitored telephone calls, and the French government has far-reaching powers to put suspects behind bars without charge. Even French journalists working on stories about terrorism have been detained by the police.

And it is likely that in both France and Spain search powers will be expanded.

The European Union as a whole has enacted new Union-wide legislation following September 11. In December, the EU agreed on a common arrest warrant that would allow any country to arrest an individual alleged to be guilty of a crime in any other EU country. This was seen as an important measure both to increase integration but also as a way for the EU as a whole to do more to fight cross-border crime. However, the crimes covered by the warrant go far beyond just terrorism and include fraud, embezzlement, and even racism. Effective 2004, people accused of offenses in one country can be arrested and deported to another country. This, once again, raised questions of civil liberties and about the legal protections that will actually be afforded to any individual in the EU, whether citizen or foreigner.

The United States similarly enacted tough measures following the September 11 attack. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Congress passed legislation that would expand the government’s ability to wiretap conversations of anyone who is a suspect in a terrorist-related act; allows the government to eavesdrop on conversations between a terrorism suspect and his/her attorney; and, in perhaps the most controversial part of the legislation, allows the government to detain foreigners who are believed to pose a threat to national security. In that case, the detention would be without trial and with only minimal oversight. In addition, the legislation would eliminate the statute of limitations on terrorist crimes, and would change existing law to make harboring a terrorist a crime. On November 13, subsequent to the passage of the legislation, President Bush issued an executive order allowing any foreigner suspected of terrorism to be detained and tried by military tribunal rather than in civilian courts.

Since the legislation was enacted, the United States has detained more than 600 foreigners, some of whom, it quickly became clear, were arrested for reasons as basic as someone having the same name as one of the hijackers. Furthermore, the government’s decision to question more than 5,000 students from Muslim countries, most of whom are in the country legally, has been met with an outcry. In fact, in some cases both the universities and local authorities have refused to comply with the government’s order. As of mid-January the Justice Department was gearing up to locate another 6,000 Arab and Muslim men who have overstayed their visa and, therefore, are in the country illegally. This, too, has raised concerns about “racial profiling” in the hunt for possible terrorists.

The United States’ legislation and treatment of accused terrorists put it at odds with some of the countries of Europe which, as noted above, are far from in agreement on some of these issues to start with. This disagreement surfaced when the United States wanted to extradite a French citizen accused of being the “20^th highjacker” who was arrested in France. Massoui was one of 30 Muslims arrested by the French police because they were suspected of terrorism or of having terrorist connections. However, his extradition to the United States was held up while the two countries negotiated about whether he could be executed if found guilty. France, like the other EU countries, has given up the death penalty and will not support extradition for any one if the death penalty is a possibility. The United States finally agreed to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for extradition.

The United States has also tightened up security at its borders with both Mexico and Canada. This, too, has caused problems with its neighbors and closest trading partners. At the border crossings with Mexico, the wait to cross is now often hours, as trucks and cars are inspected and individuals questioned. Even those who have long-held legitimate jobs across the border have felt harassed by the intensified procedures. Ironically, one of the effects of this new procedure has been to further depress the economies of the border areas at a time when Mexico was already feeling the contagion effects of the recession in the US.

Patrols at the border with Canada have also been increased. However, the very length of that border combined with the open terrain in a number of places, have kept it relatively porous. The United States has had to rely heavily on Canadian authorities to help crack down on potential terrorists trying to enter the country illegally from the north.

One of the lessons of September 11 is that it can be too easy to move from country to country. Open borders mean that terrorists can easily cross from one country to another virtually undetected. Further, many countries need to have foreign workers in their country as an economic necessity, whether they are there legally or illegally. And few countries would dispute the importance of student exchanges country-to-country. Yet, unless all countries agree to the same set of standards at their borders and regarding immigrants and migrants, the possibility exists that a situation will remain that will allow potential terrorists to move freely. The dilemma facing countries is how to balance their own protection with the civil liberties of foreigners.

Questions for Consideration

1) Can countries arrive at a set of recommendations for security measures that would ensure the monitoring of foreigners but without infringing on civil liberties?

2) At a time of more porous borders, how can the arrival and departure of foreigners be monitored effectively?

3) What would countries recommend when the anti-terrorism legislation enacted in one country infringes upon the rights or civil liberties of foreigners?

Environment: Protecting the Food and Water Supply

Synopsis

When anthrax was distributed through the mail following the events of September 11, the United States felt especially vulnerable. Not only were some of our most prized landmarks, including the home of the Department of Defense, directly attacked but suddenly the US mail became a deadly weapon. But the anthrax attack also raised questions about whether anyone can really be safe from bioterrorism, especially directed against the most basic areas, such as the food and water supply.

At a time of open borders, when people, mail, goods, etc. flow easily from one country to another, the danger of bioterrorist attacks become especially acute. One terrorist with a vial of toxin could easily move from country to country in Europe virtually undetected. A deadly toxin embedded in a shipment of grain designed for humanitarian relief could not only poison whole villages, but could easily undermine the good-will such a shipment was designed to instill. Porous borders and vast open unpatrolled spaces coupled with the fact that some toxins are virtually undetectable seem to be a recipe for another potential disaster.

Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, a working group of countries has been convened to address this topic which is of global concern. Their job is to see whether they can arrive at international guidelines that would help ensure that food and water supplies are protected from potential bioterrorist attacks.

The Issues

In 1984, a small group of domestic terrorists put salmonella into a salad bar in a restaurant in Portland, Oregon. Hundreds got sick but the incident also made clear how vulnerable a civilian population could be. In 1995, Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system, causing death and illness but also fears regarding the vulnerability of the population in this major urban area. The sarin that they released was less than 20% pure, yet its effects were devastating.

While these were isolated incidents, coupled with the anthrax attacks following September 11, they have taken on greater importance as a lesson for governments about the potential health risks to the population due to bioterrorism. One expert in the field at the University of Sussex in Britain notes that “the risks of a biological or chemical attack depends on three things: access to raw materials; the technical skills to deploy them; and a willingness to cause mass destruction.”[19] Clearly, the last criterion is no longer in doubt. However, getting the raw materials to make the deadly substance and then finding a way to deploy it can be much harder. However, the lesson of Portland, Tokyo and now the US mail is that “where there is a will, there is a way.”

Most experts agree that finding the deadly substances sufficient to kill thousands of people is neither cheap nor easy. And even if they were to be found, putting the compounds together would require both time and knowledge. Biological agents are even more difficult than chemical ones to turn into weapons of mass destruction. Again, according to experts, not all strains of biological agents such as anthrax or plague are equally as deadly. And, while growing the strains in a laboratory can be tricky, delivering them can be even more difficult. Some bacteria and viruses can penetrate and cause infection only if they are broken up and can penetrate deep into the lungs, for example. That would probably require a fine spray that would be difficult to deliver and would probably only work in a confined area. An exception might be the smallpox virus, which is highly infectious. Because the disease was eradicated more than twenty years ago, most people have no immunity, which suggests that an outbreak could spread rapidly. The only “official” repositories of the smallpox virus currently exist in the United States and in Russia. But, most experts agree, this, too is an unlikely scenario.

Nonetheless, concerns about the viability of such an attack remain high in the minds of most governments. A new report from the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the best way to cope with biological terrorism is to be prepared through good surveillance and rapid response. For example, doctors and nurses need to be trained to spot any suspicious or unusual symptoms, and to report them immediately to public health authorities. These officials, in turn, must be able to recognize anomalous patterns so that they can take action quickly.

Most countries, however, are unprepared for the type of coordinated response recommended by the WHO. In fact, in a report issued about nine months before the anthrax attacks, in the United States the General Accounting Office (GAO), an investigative arm of the Congress, criticized the government for poorly managing the medical stockpiles that had been developed specifically to protect the public from attack from biological weapons.[20] The GAO charged that the various government agencies responsible had managed the stockpiles so poorly that they might be unavailable in the event of deadly attack. The GAO found shortages in both vital drugs and emergency supplies that were supposed to be on hand for use should it become necessary. In short, the GAO warned the United States government that it needed to be better prepared for the possibility of bioterrorist attack, a warning that the government ignored and which turned out to be prescient in light of the anthrax incidents.

And the United States is not the only country that is unprepared. In fact, few countries have devoted either the financial or the scientific/medical resources that would be necessary to protect their country from this type of attack. The rapid spread of foot and mouth disease through Europe in 2000 following on the heels of the “mad cow” disease epidemic in England, both of which resulted in the death or destruction of thousands of livestock, made clear how quickly this type of attack could devastate parts of Europe. While there is little doubt that both those epidemics were natural in origin, the effects of a conscious attack would be equally as great if not greater.

One of the ironies of confronting a bioterrorist attack, both preparing for it and also determining how best to deal with it, is that it requires conscious coordination and the close collaboration among groups that generally do not work together: the national security and public health establishments within each country. And, given how quickly epidemics can spread, they must be willing to share information with their counterparts in other countries as well.

According to one physician, “the first responders to any bioweapons attacks are likely to be doctors and public-health authorities. If terrorists should ever unleash infectious agents....the first evidence of the attack will almost certainly appear in hospital emergency rooms. At this point, a rapid response will be critical....” But he also notes that “Few doctors have ever seen a case of smallpox, plague or anthrax. Few medical laboratories are equipped to diagnose such conditions.”[21] And it is here that sharing information across countries becomes especially critical; while most doctors in the United States have not seen these types of infections, doctors who work in other countries, especially in the developing world, might be more familiar with the symptoms associated with such diseases and could more quickly identify anomalous symptoms.

In contemplating how best to address this type of threat, governments need to be aware of possible delivery methods. For example, an industrial accident in Connecticut in 1998 resulted in accidentally pouring tons of chemicals into the local drinking water reservoirs. While no health injuries resulted, studying the process by which the chemicals were backed into the water system in this and other cases has allowed officials to study what could happen if this were done deliberately. Here, once again, early detection of what is known as “backflow” is the key, starting with even the slightest change in water pressure as an indicator that the water supply has been tampered with. But this, too, requires coordination as water easily flows from state to state and even country to country.

The United States has started to initiate procedures to protect the domestic food and water supply. For example, since September 11 there has been increased surveillance of domestic sources of water, including helicopter patrols above the aqueducts that bring water into major urban areas such as Los Angeles. Utilities have posted extra guards to patrol reservoirs and treatment plants, in order to guard against the “backflow” danger of using the system of pipes to spread deadly toxins. And the Congress has passed legislation to boost inspection of imported foods shipments in order to guard against the danger that toxins are being imported in those shipments.

The European Union has also passed measures to protect their food supplies in addition to those measures put into effect following the outbreak of the livestock diseases. For example, the EU has enacted strict measures limiting genetically modified food and for inspecting and protecting “natural” food products. But, again, these measures are limited in scope and are far from global. Further, they address only one side of the issue, i.e., the need to protect the food supply. What is missing is a coordinated response in the event of attack.

Given the increased threat of bioterrorism directed against the food and water supply of potentially any country, the World Health Organization has convened a working group of countries to address this topic of global concern. The job of this group is to see whether they can arrive at international guidelines that would help ensure that food and water supplies are protected from potential bioterrorist attacks. They have also been asked specifically to see whether they can arrive at guidelines for a coordinated response in the event of such an attack. In short, their charge is, first, to address prevention and, second, response.

Questions for Consideration

1) What guidelines can countries agree upon that would ensure a coordinated way to protect the food and water supply? (This must pertain especially to cases where the food and water cross borders.)

2) If guidelines can be agreed upon, who will pay for the implementation of them? How can such guidelines be monitored to ensure compliance?

3) Can countries arrive at a procedure for ensuring a coordinated response in the even of bioterrorist attack?

[2] The issues were selected at the faculty training workshop, November 30 and December 1, and reflect current international conditions post-September 11in a way that is relevant to the various classes and topics in which the simulation will be implemented.

[3] Please note that this scenario is current as of January 2002. As we have seen, conditions can change rapidly, which will make it even more important for each country team to do detailed background research. Prior to the start of the simulation a scenario update will be provided which will note any changes to the international conditions or the situation in specific countries. Countries should be prepared to send out their first substantive messages at the start of the simulation as of April 1.

[4] The information contained in this scenario is factual and current as of January 12, 2002. The materials were drawn from readily available sources including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, plus others as noted. Specific cites are included in the text.

[5] A very detailed description of the issue and its impact on Mexico and Mexico’s relations with the United States can be found in “A Mexican State Finds Drugs a Power that Corrupts Absolutely,” in The New York Times, January 9, 2000.

[6] “China, America and Japan: The Uneasy Triangle,” in The Economist, March 17, 2001, p. 21.

[7] See: http://www1.umn/edu/humanrts/resolutions/49/60GA1994.html.

[9] Quoted in “Caution: This Weapon May Backfire,” by Serge Schmemann, in The New York Times, December 30, 2001, Section 4, p. 1.

[12] “Globalization’s Last Hurrah,” in Foreign Policy (January-February 2002), 38.

[13] Joseph Kahn, “The World’s Economies Slide Together Into Recession,” The New York Times, November 25, 2001.

[15] For more on the Globalization Index, see “Globalization’s Last Hurrah?” in Foreign Policy, op. cit.

[18] “GOP, Democrats Square Off Over Legislation to Allow Entry of More Skilled Foreign Workers,” by Marjorie Valbrun in The Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2000.

[19] “Fear and Breathing,” in The Economist, September 29, 2001, p. 37.

[20] Stephen L. Cohen, “U.S. A Sitting Duck for Bioterrorism,” Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2000.