Reflection:

Overall, the IR simulation was an excellent experience in educating the class of the different issues we are surrounded with, that affect our daily lives both directly and indirectly, yet we know close to nothing about. The Palestine and Israel issue, as well as the Kashmir issue are the two focal points of the simulation. My role was one crucial to the Kashmir situation; I played the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf, and was privileged enough to take on the views and opinions of such a honourary man.

How was this issue significant to your nation?

As previously mentioned, this particular simulation focused on two main issues, the Palestine/Israel dispute over building Palestine a sovereign state, and the India/ Pakistan dispute over who is the rightful owner of Kashmir. Both issues are very significant to Pakistan, but the Kashmir dispute is far more significant as it directly affects all Pakistanis, whereas the Palestine and Israel situation merely plays an important role in foreign affairs.

Pakistan and Palestine have been allies for several years now. The Pakistani Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali and the Palestinian Foreign Minister H.E. Mr. Farouk Kaddoumi have often had meetings to discuss the relationship between the two nations, and how both nations can support each other to achieve peace and success in their missions. Pakistan feels that the sufferings of Palestinian people will bear fruit one day in the shape of freedom and sovereignty for their oppressed people. Their situation is very similar to that of Pakistan, as Pakistan itself came into existence due the sacrifices of over millions of people. Pakistan does not support the Palestinians simply because they too are Muslims, rather because they have felt that it is their utmost duty to ensure human rights to people worldwide. The hatred between the two nations affects the entire international community, especially since Pakistan is a close companion to all Middle Eastern countries, agrees with what the stands Arab countries take on the issue, and refuses to recognize Palestinian land as that of Israelis. Also, Jerusalem is located in present-day Israel, which is considered to be holy-land to billions of Muslims all around the world. The Jews do not give access to all Muslims to visit this holy land, which causes immense anger and frustration towards them. As Pakistan is one of the key players in the “War on Terror,” it feels it is necessary to deplete the causes to terrorism as well as terrorism itself from all places of the world. Finally, Pakistan has been aiding Palestine for over 50 years, and feels it deserves to the right to represent the voice of the oppressed Palestinians.

The issue of Kashmir is a significant world affair. Both India and Pakistan hold nuclear powers which can prove to be detrimental to the world, millions of people die each year due to civil wars, and terrorism is on the rise from both countries. This is why so much importance and time was given to the issue. Kashmir is such an enormous concern for Pakistan, as it is one of the main reasons that Pakistan’s economy is so underdeveloped. Pakistan has spent most of its economy and GDP on strengthening the military and army, as a pose to depleting poverty and inner conflicts. Pakistan has been fighting for the right to Kashmir for more than 50 years, which is why it the major issue to be settled on Pakistan’s agenda. As stated several times throughout the simulation, according to the Agreement signed in1947, all Hindu-dominated states were to become part of India, while all Muslim-dominated states part of Pakistan. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan was definite in staying true to the agreement and handed over all Hindu-dominated regions to India, no matter how prosperous they were. India however, did not stay true to their word, and the Maharaja, Hari Singh, declared Kashmir as part of India, disregarding the fact that Kashmir was a predominate Muslim state. Since then, Pakistan feels it is obliged to take the land that should rightfully be theirs, which is why Pakistan acts with so much resistance and violence towards the Indians, through which hostility is formed and implemented on both sides of the border.

What were the policy objectives of your nation?

The policy objectives we presented in the simulation clearly represent those of Pakistani officials. They consist of courses of action such as urging Israel to tear down the “fence” of segregation, helping the Palestinians voice their opinions, giving an unbiased view to many situations to facilitate the issue by making it as realistic as possible, in addition to holding peaceful discussions with the international community regarding both simulation issues. Even though at times we felt that our importance was being challenged, for instance, when Canada did not invite us to their Peace Conference, we maintained our cool and continued to talk to them respectfully and adherently. Our only opposition was India. At some points we were, forced to take action against the Indians, to prove to them that we were not cowards, and that we can take care of both ourselves as well as the people of Kashmir. Other than that, we upheld our reputation and policy of being a courteous and respectful nation, all the while spilling our minds of our opinions and views on all issues.

Our additional objectives revolve around the idea of the United Nations coming in and taking control over such devastating affairs. As it can be seen that with the UN’s help in placing a ceasefire line (L.O.C) in Kashmir, violence has decreased to a bare minimum. A specific way we tried to attain peace, which took place in the beginning of the simulation, but died off later on, was the formation and attention given to the Organization of Islamic Countries (O.I.C). We thought that this policy objective would definitely rein power and ultimately proceed to world peace, but as time progressed, we realized that it would be better to communicate with all countries regardless of their current standings in the political arena.

“The War on Terrorism!” was Pakistan’s strongest link and proof of trying to rid the world of terrorism. This policy was the reason we could proudly say that we do not support militants, so if terrorists do exist in Kashmir, they are not funded by our nation. Also, we stuck by the option of allowing all Kashmiri people to hold a referendum in which they would be able to decide the fate of their state, and whether they wanted it to become sovereign, part of India, or part of Pakistan.

Who were your allies and adversaries on these issues?

The United States of America was supposed to be our ally throughout the simulation, but it did not seem to work out that way. At first, Saheb (aka. Donald Rumsfeld) supported Pakistan by explaining in detail the referendum which was to take place nearly 50 years ago, which India kept wrongfully postponing. But later on in the simulation, he switched sides, and seemingly converted and became completely pro-Indian. That is an example of an ally gone astray. Britain could not really be counted on as an ally or adversary, as the only input they gave was for both Pakistan and India to destroy their nuclear weapons. France, which I thought was going to be a neutral party, ended up surprising me. They had done some previous research (unlike other countries), and had become aware of the issue at hand. They raised important questions and statistics as to the oppression Kashmiris face from India. They agreed to the peace plan Pakistan brought to the table from day one, the referendum where Kashmir decides which country it wants to become part of. Also, they disregarded the “peace plan” proposed by India, in which India would not compromise anything. Although they did not bluntly pick a side to support, it seemed obvious to me that they supported Pakistan. Iraq was definitely a well-informed country which Pakistan could depend on for full support. Iraq’s assistance towards Pakistan was truly plausible, even after Pakistan worked with the United States to deplete terror, and made Iraq’s once prosperous economy into ruins.

Other than the United States, our first and foremost, adversary would obviously be India. They worked very hard to bash every idea that we could come up with, along with dismissing crucial information brought to the table. India did not seem very well-informed about one of their major arguments, as Iraq had to step in to correct and guide them. The point was regarding the businesses they own in Kashmir (mostly privately-owned companies) and what would happen to them if they were forced to separate. Also, India’s peace plan was similar to that of the Iraqi deportation plan, pure garbage. They came up with the brilliant idea to allow Kashmir to decide their own fate by a referendum, in which they would be faced with only two options, India or sovereignty. This was not a plan for peace, it instead incited more hatred, as they completely overlooked the fact that they compromised nothing, and that Pakistan would compromise everything and would have no chances of benefits.

What were the various strategies that could be pursued in the negotiations?

There were many strategies that could have been pursued in the negotiations, many of which were approached, but then failed to succeed. The strategy that we used was to make the international community believe that all we were looking out for was the people of Kashmir, rather than our own self interest, which is partially true. But for the most part, Pakistan, just like every other country looks and works for what is in their best interest. We gained the sympathy of the class, and portrayed India as evil physical abusers, who only wanted Kashmir for its economic profit (which is true). We used examples which had taken place in real life, such as the torture Iqbal was put through, the Gujarat massacre, the burning down of Muslim holy places (ie. Babri Mosque), and articles which proved the harsh and strict conditions Kashmiris were force to live under by the Indians. At first, we presented ourselves as brave soldiers who wanted to battle it out, because we knew we could win. But we soon realized that this strategy could prove to be detrimental to us, as we were already accused of harbouring terrorists, and destroying the world with our nuclear bombs, so any sort of behaviour which could show the realists inside us would have an adverse effect on our plan. We then decided to change our strategy to become that of a peaceful country, one that only builds its military and arms to protect itself from the angry and uncivilized Indian counterparts.

Other negotiation strategies that were used were the pompous American attitude, where they thought they knew about everything, and their ideas were always right. India maintained a proud and strong typed negotiation strategy. Canada and Britain seemed to have the reasonable, easy-going, yet very persuasive strategy. France and Iraq used statistics and history to base and prove their opinions on, and so had an informative strategy. Finally, China’s negotiation strategy, often overlooked, was that of a supporter. China did not really play much of a role in the simulation, except that they supported Palestine and basically said whatever counter-arguments towards Israel and the United States that Palestine could not think of.

Did you reach your objectives? Why or Why not?

After careful consideration, I feel that Pakistan reached its objective with the Palestine and Israel issue, but did not reach its objective with the Kashmir issue. A final peace plan (although very idealistic) was reached for Palestine and Israel, which Pakistan fully supported, applauded, and volunteered to aid in. The plan was Israel giving the Gaza Strip back to the Palestinians, then if and when they gained control of the Gaza and their fanatic citizens, Israel promised to give the West Bank back to them as well. The issue of Kashmir on the other hand, did not have a final plan for peace that both sides agreed to. India remained very stubborn in not choosing to work with any alternate plans, except the one that they had discussed. Pakistan strongly refuses their plan, as for a peace plan to work, both sides must be willing to compromise, and in their plan, they compromise nothing. In the plan initiated by Pakistan, there would be a referendum in Kashmir, but the third option would be becoming part of Pakistan. India disagreed to our proposal merely because they do not want to lose out and forfeit the businesses they currently have running in Kashmir. Therefore, the main objective for Pakistan was to settle the 50-year long dispute with India over Kashmir, and that objective could not be reached due to the stubbornness of our counterpart, India.

Final Recommendations:

Based on the proposals each country made on the IR chat room, I would not be able to say that most of the countries peace plans were similar, as they were all unique and each individual brought up decisive factors which could lead to peace. Here are some of the points people brought up which have either legitimacy, and can work, or are too idealistic, and would not work in the liberalist/realist society we live in.

Jerusalem was mentioned several times throughout the chat room, and many felt that the issue of what would happen to the monotheistic holy land should have been addressed, as it is a primary aspect in the Palestine and Israel dispute.

One of the solutions that was present in the chat room was splitting Israel into two parts, which I guess would be perfect in an idealistic society, but thinking realistically, there is no way it could work. The Palestinians would still be angry because one way or another, what they feel is crucial areas of land are the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and without being in possession of both areas, the Palestinians would definitely be unhappy. As for the Israelis, with the type of attitude they have been portraying throughout the simulation and throughout history, in general, it seems almost impossible that they would just let their land be split into two without a fight. Also, even if it were to work, the amount of hatred and vengeance Palestinians and Jews feel toward each other is incomparable to any other. It is impossible for both religions to live and work together in a functional society. This solution to peace is very idealistic, which is why it would never work.

Another solution was on top of the Gaza strip being awarded to the Palestinians, have the West Bank awarded to them as well, so that all Palestinians would be satisfied. Break down the wall, and create a perimeter instead of the actual wall, so that the Israelis are showing Palestinians the boundaries, but are not segregating themselves from the rest of the neighbouring Arab countries. I would have to say that this plan seems to be the best one yet, as the Palestinians are given both pieces of land which they feel is crucial to their well-being and satisfaction, so if later on, the terrorist bombings continue to occur, Israel will be able to recognize that there is a problem, and at that point they can try to take control of the land they previously handed over, and I am sure that no one would be able to object (if that was the case). But, the flaw in this solution is, the Israelis would not be willing to simply hand over land that they have habitats and communities establishing on. They would never just hand over the land that they worked so hard to make prosperous, nor would they leave their homes for Palestinian satisfaction. Also, awarding the West Bank means that Arabs now have a crucial piece of land (from a military standpoint), which means that there would be a chance for all Arab countries to form an alliance, and take over Israel, an idea I am sure the Israelis would not prefer to implement.

Another solution for peace was having UN forces go into the Gaza Strip (assuming that it has been granted to the Palestinians), as well as Jerusalem to monitor the activities, and take the responsibility to control terrorist bombings, etc. In my opinion, this is a great plan, as it is a step to peace, rather than assuming that peace can be achieved overnight. As seen in the Kashmir issue, the UN has played a role as a mediator, and the ceasefire that they implemented actually stopped some of the violence, which can be seen as a miracle. There were numerous efforts to end the bloodshed in Kashmir, but they were all unsuccessful, and for the first time, the UN came into the picture, implemented a plan, followed through with it, and it worked. This might be a sign that if the UN can accomplish peace in such bitter countries as India and Pakistan, there might be a chance for peace between Israel and Palestine.

Economic sanctions was also mentioned in one of the posts, which I feel is an excellent idea to implement the peace plan, as that is what was the missing peace in the puzzle for the Oslo Accord, a means to implement the plan. The idea of economic sanctions is perfect to use in both the Israel and Palestine issue, as well as the Kashmir issue, because it becomes a type of ultimatum for them (either they abide by it, or face the consequences of living in poverty). But, this might not be fair in a democratic society, as it is not just to penalize the entire community for the wrongdoings of one or more individuals.

Almost all of the posts in the chat room pertaining to the Kashmir issue have a general peace plan in mind, which is the referendum. But nearly all people agree with Pakistan’s peace plan of having Kashmiris choose between India, Pakistan, and sovereignty, as appose to India’s pathetic attempt of a plan, which completely excluded Pakistan from the picture.

Application:

At the beginning of the simulation, I could see the similarity between the constant arguing and bickering compared to real life events, because that is what generally happens in real life. Country officials are bitter towards each other, in cases like Pakistan and India, and they are completely bashing one another, which is what we did. And in other cases, such as China and USA, both try to seem like the innocent yet powerful one, displaying the other one as the evil-doers. The way that I feel the simulation veered away from reality, was that countries that are not supposed to be such close allies, or countries that have few differences, exaggerated completely, and took everything to the extreme. For example, USA and Israel are not as close as they made it seem. The United States does partially support Palestine, but this could not be verified at all during the simulation. China and the United States are not bitter enemies, but that’s what it seemed to be in the simulation, as they were beginning to create an atmosphere similar to that of the Cold War. Also, China and Palestine are allies, but not to the extent of was played in the simulation, as the West made it seem like China fully supported Palestine no matter what, and they made it seem like Palestine was the top priority on China’s agenda. Syria, which is one of the Arab countries, did not show their side or support towards Palestine, or did not show anything at all for that matter. Russia being one of the top world powers did not have much of a say in any of the international affairs and rulings. The words of advice which appealed to me during this simulation was “either you’re one of us, or you’re one of them,” President George Bush’s very famous words which lead people to great extremes when he said it, and had the same impact in our class. Also, people took their personal considerations into account, such as, for the entire open debate, India had no contribution, it was just personal contributions from Mohammed and Shabir. Also, Saheb was completely pro-Indian, because of his heritage, but in actuality, America is not as pro-India as he made it seem to be. As well, Saheb made a big deal out of the fact that Canada and Britain did not support him and his theories to world peace, which was completely unnecessary. Canada and Britain are both independent countries, and do not always support the United States, such as when George Bush went into Iraq. Also, the media was very neutral, which is non-existent in real life. The media is always bias in presenting their views, and when the media takes slants, it makes life more interesting and more like reality, which is what the media was lacking.

The most important element I learned about the Middle East is that we can hope and pray as much as we want, but it seems almost impossible to attain peace in the Middle East. As a Muslim, I was aware of the issue beforehand, and looked at only the Palestinian and Muslim side. But after this simulation, (although I still favour the Palestinians), I could more or less see and understand the Israeli side as well. Also, I was aware of the issue, but not to the extent where I knew the current news and affairs (killing of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin), or the amount of bloodshed that actually takes place.

The future changes I would suggest for the IR simulation is to stay focused on one topic rather than two, because one is more predominant than the other. But, if it seems like two issues are better suited than just one, lay down a set of rules and/or guidelines so that each issue can receive equal representation. Also, have the controllers do their job by controlling, but try to avoid having them from being over-controlling by stopping people from yelling and getting heated up in debate and discussion, as that is what makes debates interesting. If the debates and conferences had gotten a bit more heated, it would have made the simulation much more interesting, and many more points would be brought up in the spur of the moment. One of the best ways to begin the simulation would be with presentations (such as the South Asian Presentation on the last day of the simulation), as it breaks the ice, sets the mood, and informs people on the issue and what is to be discussed and solved. Try to avoid having losers from the previous year or semester write long, informative, and boring messages in the chat room. If you want to have outsiders play a role, have them write shorter and more concise, as well as more offensive pieces so that the issue gets more heated up during class time. Tell the media to pick sides, be bias, and bend the truth because it makes the simulation more entertaining and motivates people to work harder. I would rather the media print out their newspapers, rather than post it up on a website, because of technical difficulties, along with the fact that the research for the simulation is very time consuming, and it becomes a hassle to go on and check for any recent updates on media coverage. Altogether, more time should be spent on this particular simulation, because it is more informative, factual, and real, compared to the first simulation (country simulation). The entire simulation should be a bit more structuralized, as to letting the students know what the purpose of the simulation is, how everything is run, what is acceptable and what isn’t, as well as how and why peace conferences are held.

Overall, I loved the international simulation and am sure everyone else did too. This simulation was less personal, as in the previous simulation, it was hard to turn your back against your friends, whereas in this one, they knew or should have known your intentions, motives, objectives, and understand why you did what you did as a country. I feel useless countries (such as Syria) should be removed, and replaced with international assets, such as the United Nations. Every country should be directly involved with a conflict, and research notes should be checked up on, to ensure everyone is going to be a part of the international war. The Palestine and Israel issue is a timeless issue (it should not be, but it is), and so such heated issues should be chosen, so that the peace plan can actually get somewhere, rather than focusing on a country that had problems but are now fixed. It was great that we were allowed to choose who we worked with, because with this simulation, your partner basically becomes your other half, so its great to be working with someone that you like, as appose to two people working together who barely know each other. Anonymous comments in the chat room initiate trouble between countries, which is great because it gets everyone into the mood of the simulation. Last but not least, loud and obnoxious students (ie. Saheb and Kyle) should always be the ones to play the United States of America, as they end up representing and behaving in the manner that the country actually acts in, so it shows the rest of the international community how frustrating it can be to work with people you hate working with, but you have to, because if you go against them, you will be destroyed, no matter what your opinion may be.

THE END!