Scenario for the Demo Sim Type Simulation

Introduction

Note: This document includes only selected sections of the full scenario for this type of simulation.

This scenario provides an overview of the issues to be handled in the simulation. Background information for each issue is provided, along with general questions and more specific negotiation questions. The proposals offered during the simulation should relate to the issues raised in these negotiation questions.

The setting for this simulation is winter 2005. 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. Participants in this negotiation are member-governments of an international organization. They meet every winter to negotiate and develop a set of documents that will be the agenda for the spring 2005 conference. It is the goal of your team to create proposals that can be adopted by the full membership at the spring meeting.

Military Security

Conflict Resolution and Peacekeeping

The traditional state-versus-state model of war that dominated the twentieth century has seemingly been replaced by internal conflicts that revolve around ethnic, political, and territorial dynamics. This new breed of conflict has often resulted in genocides (mass killings of an ethnic or racial group), such as the ethnic cleansing witnessed in the former Yugoslavia and ongoing in the Great Lakes region of Africa, and politicide (massacres of political opposition) as in Indonesia’s Aceh region and Colombia. The international community, organized around state-level organizations, has responded slowly and unsystematically to these civil conflicts and has often stood by while brutal campaigns continued unchecked. 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.

Sovereignty is central to the issue of conflict resolution and peacekeeping. Within the traditional international system, states are considered sovereign entities that have sole control over the activities within their borders. Respect for a state’s sovereignty can prevent the international community from taking action to address situations, even atrocities, in another country. In order to be more effective peacekeepers, members of the international community need to find an appropriate balance between national sovereignty and the right of the international community to intervene in the internal affairs of a state. As such, it is crucial for you to consider what your country’s point of view is regarding the “sanctity of state sovereignty.” This balance has not been clearly defined, and, until it is established, conflict prevention and resolution efforts of the international community will continue to be applied inconsistently with some atrocities left unaddressed. [Analysis]

One of the primary issues related to conflict resolution is the role of the peacekeeping troops. A distinction is often made between the roles of peacekeepers (e.g., monitoring cease fire agreements, supervising decommissioning of arms, and assisting refugee resettlement) and peacemakers (e.g., disarming combatants, protecting refugees from attacks, and creating buffer zones between opponents). [UN report] Strict definitions of peacekeeping usually refer to activities undertaken once hostilities have ended, but this approach has limited value in the case of genocidal or politicidal conflicts. On the other hand, peacemaking often entails levels of casualties and long-term intervention unacceptable to most states. The role of third-party forces, and their level of involvement in existing conflicts, needs to be examined and a set of guidelines agreed to on this issue. As you discuss these issues, consider what military forces or support capacity your country have available to provide for peacekeeping missions. Have you contributed to peacekeeping efforts in the past?

United Nations member-states have traditionally been the main provider of peacekeeping forces, yet there has been disagreement about the funding of these missions as well as the leadership of forces. Some members have been reluctant, and have even refused, to provide support for UN missions and have resisted putting their national armed forces under the command of the diverse and multinational United Nations leadership. One alternative that has been proposed is the use of regional peacekeeping forces, trained and supported through international cooperative agreements. For example, the United States has been active in supporting the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program, which would train a response force in Africa composed of regional troops. 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 of their deployment may be to increase conflict rather than stop it.

Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction

During the 1970s and the 1980s the international community responded successfully to a rash of plane hijackings by tightening airline security and creating cooperative international security arrangements. But security relationships between states have changed since then. The major terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, and the subsequent war on terrorism led by the US and its allies, have altered the way security threats are thought of and addressed. While military, diplomatic, and economic actions have been taken, few feel that the world is safer today. Compounding feelings of insecurity are fears that, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will fall into the hands of terrorists or hostile regimes. The international community has not been able to reach a consensus on the best ways to address these emergent sources of insecurity.

Terrorism has been a major international security issue for decades; however, it became the primary issue on September 11, 2001. The post-9/11 US-led war on terrorism has spread from Afghanistan to the Philippines to Iraq, including military action, training, surveillance, and mass arrests of alleged foes both domestic and international. The US and its allies state that actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have prevented thousands of planned terrorist attacks. Others challenge this assessment and point, instead, to the disorder in those societies following military actions as a breeding ground for more instability and new threats to peace. They argue, as well, that the resources required to launch these military attacks would be more wisely spent on programs to alleviate poverty around the world and to help better the situation of those who feel alienated within the international community. Policymakers today are struggling to decide whether anti-terrorism efforts and resources should be focused on short-term needs or on long-term strategies (such as alleviating social conditions that can foster the spread of terrorism, addressing long-standing conflicts, etc.).

The issue of WMD continues to be a primary concern for all states, many of which fear alliances between terrorist groups and “rogue states” that are believed to possess, or be in pursuit of, WMD. Also, the US decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the impending US resumption of a program to produce small-yield ‘bunker buster’ nuclear weapons, and North Korea’s decision to withdraw from the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] (NPT) threaten to undermine existing international law on WMD. To those countries seeking to develop WMD capacity, it seems hypocritical for states already in possession of these weapons to prevent other states from developing the same capacity. Also, some countries, including Russia, have questionable control over these weapons (so-called “loose nukes”) due to breakdowns in their security infrastructure. Poorly controlled WMD are potentially easy targets for terrorist organizations, yet there is still no organized effort among countries to secure them. Many countries have long been known to supply weapons components and technologies to other countries, such as China’s sales to Pakistan or France’s sales to Iran. In recent years, conventional arms exports have also increased to record levels, well beyond the period of the Cold War in adjusted dollars, with the US selling close to half of all conventional weapons exports. Your country’s position towards international agreements that limit weapons proliferation, such as the NPT and [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] (CTBT) should have a big influence on your position in these negotiations.