FINAL POSITION PAPER: United States of America Neil de Gray
REFLECTION:
In the three-week International
Relations Simulation, Yiannis and I had the pleasure of role playing Colin
Powell and George W. Bush respectively.
As the United States of America we had an important role to play in the
world community and the peace talks surrounding both the Israel / Palestine and
Iraq conflicts. The United States is the
indisputable world power of this era and as the power plays an important role
in the decisions made by the global community.
The strength and authority of the United States is apparent in almost
every aspect of the global community.
The United States is home to 5% of the world’s population, yet controls
25% of the world’s economy. Furthermore
its economy is twice as large as its nearest competitor the Japanese. On a political standpoint the United States
has the strongest, most advanced military in the history of mankind. It is also the leading member of
organisations such as NATO and the United Nations. The United States is a world leader and is
often the driving force behind decisions made on the international level. As we
were trying to mirror world events as closely as possible, Yiannis and myself had
a major role to play.
Significance of the issue to the United States
The problems surrounding the Middle
East have a large significance to the American political landscape. This holds especially true for the conflicts
in Iraq and Israel where the United States has a personal holding on the
outcome. In Iraq the United States has
long been an enemy of Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War of the early
1990's. With the United States most
recent attack the political significance of Iraq becomes quite evident. Iraq represents a political power in the
Middle East that the American government wants to see eliminated. American officials claim that Saddam is a
monster and a man who must be removed from power for the safety of Americans
and democracies around the world. They
repeat over and over again that he has weapons of mass destruction capable of
destroying entire countries. They also
explain that Iraq is a haven for terrorist organisations that must be destroyed
as they were in Afghanistan. The
liberation of the Iraqi people is another reason the Americans give for
entering Iraq. The problem with these
claims is that there are plenty of other nations that have weapons of mass
destruction, control their people and hide terrorist cells. Iraq is targeted because of their “black
gold,” their oil reserves. Other critics
have said the Bush administration is trying to take the pressure of the home
front and a faltering economy. It is
also a strategic position for Americans to occupy in the Middle East. Anyway you look at it Iraq is an important
issue that is at the very front of world and American politics.
In Israel conflict and violence have
plagued the region since its inception as a country in 1948. Israel was first formed by the United Nations
after World War II to give Jewish people a home state. Before the creation of Israel, Jewish people
had no true nation and lived within the borders of other countries around the
world. The events of World War II brought
forth the desire to create a Jewish state, where they could govern themselves. At the time the Holocaust made people aware
of the discrimination the Jewish people faced, and emotions were running high
to help the Jewish people. Britain was
given control of the area that makes up Israel after the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of World War One. After World War II they gave the territory to
the United Nations to decide upon its use as a Jewish state. In 1948 Israel was created against the
desires of the Arab world and the Palestinians who occupied the area. Israel was attacked, but defended its borders
and expanded into Syria and other surrounding nations. Palestinians were left with no land for
themselves, and the role had been reversed.
The Palestinian population was furious at their loss and felt robbed of their
territory.
Palestine and Israel play a very
important role in American politics. The
United States has always been a strong supporter of Israel and has helped them
defend themselves on numerous occasions.
Israel receives a lot of foreign aid money, supplies and weapons from
the American government and has long been a strong American ally. Israel receives a quarter of all foreign aid
the American government distributes each year.
This is equal to $3.5 billion annually (www.stanford.edu/-bgiddens/usaid.htm). Since 1949 the United States has given Israel
a total of $84,854,827,200 in aid, this all for a country that ranks 16th
wealthiest in the world. Israel also
receives 50% of the American budget for Foreign Military Financing. The other two major benefactors of this
budget are Egypt and Jordan, both of whom received aid only after signing peace
agreements with Israel. Israel is also
home to the world’s second largest fleet of F-16's with more than 200 jets and
more on order from the US. Israel
represents an important American ally in the Middle East, one of a few in the
area. Strategically Israel is important
to the United States and its foreign policy in the Middle East. There is also a strong connection between
Israel and Jewish immigrants residing in the United States. There are a lot of powerful American Jews
that have a political influence. Israel
is of great significance to American political leaders. It is an invested ally that is important to
American influence in the Middle East. Therefore,
the conflict between Israel and Palestine presents a prominent issue in
American politics.
Policy Objectives
In the formation of our foreign
policy, Yiannis and I tried to closely follow that of the real American
government. This means we researched the
American position and tried to copy it in our own simulation. In Iraq we set three main objectives to
secure the area and bring peace to the world.
Our first objective was to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction
Saddam Hussein possesses in his large arsenal.
This was our primary objective in the Iraq conflict, and one that
closely resembles the American position.
Our second objective was to liberate the innocent people of Iraq and
remove their corrupt and evil leader Saddam Hussein. To do this we will continue military
operations that target the militia of Iraq.
Finally, we wished to destroy all terrorist cells in the region. By accomplishing all three objectives we will
ensure peace in the Middle East and remove a monster in Saddam Hussein from
power. The Iraq situation was fairly
easy for us to create our policy, as every day, all day CNN depicts these
objectives. With the conflict in Iraq we
just followed American policy and added our own ideas as they came along. One position we developed on our own was that
regarding the Kurdish minorities. Our
plan was to give them a northern section of Iraq where they can govern
themselves, but not create a separate nation.
This is similar to the situation that existed before the attacks on Iraq
began. Basically as the United States we
are going to continue the war on Iraq until Baghdad is captured and Hussein
eliminated. Diplomacy failed to work in
this situation and military action was the only option left.
The situation in Israel and
Palestine required more of our own development and thinking. Our objectives in Israel focussed around
the development of an independent Palestinian state that was self
governing. Ultimately we wanted the
creation of two states living harmoniously together. To do this many changes would have to be made
in the governments and organisations of these groups. The first steps to these reforms have already
been put into progress. In our plan we
called for the appointment of new Palestinian leadership, which was
accomplished when Mahmoud Abbas took the position of Prime Minister. Abbas has little real power, but he is an
important step in the right direction.
The power must also be transferred from a few unaccountable individuals
to the people and Palestinians must be given more authority to govern
themselves. A Palestinian democracy
could be formed and supported by the United States and other countries. The Palestinian people should be given the
full authority of a legislative body.
With the aid of the United States and Arab nations in the region a
Palestinian state could be created.
Another issue we addressed was the
suicide bombings and military action of Israel.
The funding of terrorist cells such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas must be
stopped as must be military action against Palestinians. This however, is much easier said then
done. To accomplish this the Israeli
government must take concrete steps in the building of a Palestine state and
Palestinians must stop the funding of terrorist cells. To stop the violent clashes of these cultures
we proposed that Israel drawback to its borders of September 28, 2000 and stop
Israeli settlement of these lands. At
the moment Israelites are settling in fertile Palestinian land, and holding
claim to the territory. The Palestinians
are being pushed into smaller and smaller areas and are now being fenced
in. This action has to stop and Israel
must allow freedom of movement to the Palestinian people. Israel must also allow the Palestine economy
to build and release frozen Palestinian revenues. Palestinians must be allowed to work and
travel throughout the country in peace.
The military cycle of the area must be halted to stop the deaths of
innocent residents of the country.
To create two sovereign states
Israel and Palestine will also have to work closely with their neighbours. The Arab states surrounding Israel will be a
vital part of any peace agreements in the area.
The first step in this process is to form better relations with Arab
nations in the surrounding territories, such as Syria and Lebanon. These countries must work together to form a
stronger trading agreement and create peace in the region. Any creation of a Palestinian state will rely
heavily on the reaction of those nations surrounding Israel.
Finally, religious areas such as
Jerusalem must be monitored by international peacekeepers. Jerusalem in particular is the root of many
of the problems in Israel as it has significance to three main religions. To stop conflict in this area a United
Nations peacekeeping force will be stationed in the region. It may be necessary to denationalize
Jerusalem for the sake of peace in the territory. People of all religions should be allowed to
enter Jerusalem safely and peacefully.
The final aspects of the creation of a separate Palestinian state, such
as a capital would be negotiated after the instigation of these
objectives. If the Palestinian and
Israeli leadership agree to make a sustained effort to cooperate, two separate
states could be created and live in relative peace.
Allies and Adversaries
The allies in the simulation were
almost identical to those in real life, a testament to the students following
the political objectives of their country.
Britain played by Kyle and Becky
were close allies throughout the simulation and had similar opinions to
ours. This was more true for the Iraq
situation than Israel, but in both conflicts the United Kingdom was a strong
ally. Israel was an ally of ours as
well, agreeing that a separate state had to be formed, but only if the
existence of Israel was not threatened.
Russia was at first an enemy (Mystery Alliance) but eventually turned
180 degrees and became our ally by the end of the talks. We also had agreements with Turkey, Jordan
and Iran, but they didn’t play a major role in the peace conference.
Our adversaries included Iraq,
Palestine to some extent, France and Canada.
Iraq was an obvious adversary to our plans in Iraq, but agreed on most
stances with our plans for Israel.
France and Canada were opposed to our actions against Iraq and made it
known that they supported the United Nations not us. Palestine was confrontational on a few issues
over their land separation and tried to hammer us at the press conference, as
did most nations. Our most vocal
adversary was Russia at the beginning of the simulation, but they eventually
joined our side. At the beginning of the
simulation we were the most hated country, but by the end most countries agreed
with our proposals for Israel. At our
first peace conference we faced a lot of adversity, but by the end of the
simulation we were allies with most nations.
Strategies
Following the American example, we
were firm and commanding in our leadership at peace conferences and
debates. Our negotiating strategies were
get what we want, and convince all others our ideas were the best. From the first day of the simulation we were
the target of most other countries. At
our first diplomatic meetings we didn’t have to move from our seats, the other
countries all came to us. I found that
convincing other countries to follow our plans was fairly easy to do. We just told them our plan and why it would
work and they agreed. We had more
knowledge of the situations surrounding Iraq and Israel than most other
countries and this worked to our advantage.
Most countries didn’t really know the details of the situations, but
based their opinions on what they heard.
By being informed we were able to convince most countries to become our
allies. For example, at the press
conference and debate we were hammered with questions, but because we could
answer them informatively and accurately we didn’t get into any trouble. Our knowledge and use of knowledge allowed us
to take a firm negotiating stance.
Bribery and insult became other
forms of negotiation we employed on occasion.
We bribed a few countries with money and trade if they would allow our
troops into their countries. We used this
technique to some extent with Turkey and Jordan. Insults were used against Russia in the early
stages of the simulation revolving around the chat room. France and Canada were also countries we
insulted to try and get them to switch sides mainly on the issue in Iraq. We referred to their cowardice and lack of
fortitude in the situation with Iraq.
Overall our negotiating with other countries proved fairly successful
and our firm strategy was effective.
Accomplishments
We were fairly successful at
accomplishing our objectives and saw most of our ideas transferred to the peace
proposal. In fact, all five of our
proposals were adopted in the Montreal Peace Conference Proposal. I think we were successful because we knew
more than most other groups. We had a
greater knowledge of the problems in the Middle East because we researched them
and studied the true positions. Also,
the final proposals were almost identical for all countries. This is because a lot of nations followed the
ideas of others resulting in similar ideas.
Our success can be attributed to our greater comprehension of the
conflicts in the Middle East and our efforts to research the problems in this
region.
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
In my opinion, our simulated Peace
Conference although interesting, failed to acknowledge some of the major
problems in Israel and Palestine. Many
of our proposals do not take into account events that have already taken place
in this region, and the problems that exist between Palestinians and
Israelites. These people have a
hatred for each other that spans centuries, ever since the Babylonian and
Assyrian civilizations conquered the region.
This deep hatred is not going to suddenly end with the instigation of a
few peace proposals as many students believe.
Many of our proposals were already attempted in earlier agreements and
failed to achieve the desired effect.
The problem in Israel and Palestine will take a great deal of time and
effort to solve. For this reason I don’t
agree with a few of the points included in our peace proposal.
The first proposal that will fail
miserably is number eight; “A new leader must come to power in Israel.” This proposal closely resembles number six
which says the same for Palestine. The
problem with these proposals is that Israel is a democratic nation, where the
leaders are selected by the people. To
enforce a proposal that says you must remove an elected official will only
increase the conflict in the region. We
can’t as an external organisation change the leadership in a country. By doing this we go against the entire idea
of democracy and giving the power to the people. The leaders at the moment may not be the best
for the situation, but they were elected.
Palestine has allowed for the appointment of a Prime Minister Mahmoud
Abbas, and this is a step in the right direction, but he does not have a great
deal of power yet. The change of
leadership must be left up to the people of the nation, not foreign
officials. By going in and forcing a
change upon the people we only increase the resistance of these nations to
accept western ideologies. Instead we
must work with the leaders already in power to produce a peace plan that is
best for the people and the region. Both
sides must make a concrete agreement to look for peace and work together.
Another proposal that in my opinion
will fail is the Education Awareness Program.
Although the idea is in itself not bad, the program will not succeed in
Israel and Palestine. There will be a
great deal of backlash to any attempts at teaching children a view that is not
shared by their parents. In Canada when
a teacher expresses a view not agreed upon by the school board and parents they
are given severe penalties. Parents at
our school have complained about their children learning about current world
events, imagine the complaints of a Palestinian parent finding out their child
is being taught to love Israelites. It
is true that much of the problem is found in ignorance and refusal to
compromise and teaching this material may help, but it will also create further
problems. It will be viewed as brainwashing
and an enforcement of such a program will result in severe repercussions. By forcing someone to learn a material they
have always been told is wrong may result in the opposite effect of what was
intended. All countries have their own
bias in education, Japanese students don’t learn the true story of World War
II, Americans think they were the saving grace in both World Wars but fail to
acknowledge they joined the wars on both occasions a few years late. People are taught what others want them to hear
and by creating an education system that promotes opposites to what is promoted
at home and in the community problems are sure to arise.
Another problem may arise in the
denationalization of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is important to all three of the religions in the area and by
denationalizing it you please none of these groups. Jerusalem is a fragile location that is
constantly a location of violence and debate.
Putting it under United Nations control may have the effect desired, but
it might also back fire. The church and
religion are seen as places of peace and by placing armed troops in the region
it my result in revolt against the peacekeepers. It is very likely that a United Nations
peacekeeping force would take heavy casualties by governing this area. Jerusalem should be divided among the groups
and only when they agree completely upon the divisions. By denationalizing Jerusalem, it is almost
like allowing a western influence to take control of the city, something all
sides will oppose.
One of the proposals I think might
work is the separation of Palestine as its own state. If agreements could be made so that Israel
and Palestine could divide up the land in such a way that both parties are
happy an independent state could be created.
This would rely heavily on the cooperation of Israel and Palestine with
each other and the nations surrounding the area. Other nations would have to offer both states
defence and security as they develop.
Economic support would also be required and increased relations between
Israel and its neighbours would be important.
The only real problem I see in this proposal is
the separation of the Palestinian people.
Palestinians are most heavily populated in Golan Heights, West Bank and
Gaza, which unfortunately are separated by extensions of Israeli land. Israel is now trying to fence them in these
areas, in effect creating a prison. The
Palestinians are too far separated which may cause problems in the development
of a separate state. Another detail that
can’t be avoided is the size of Israel.
Israel is so small it could fit into New Brunswick three and a half
times. We often forget how small some of
these nations are and by dividing it up we make it even smaller and more
vulnerable.
The other proposals to create a
buffer zone and an Israeli return to older borders may work if done
properly. The buffer zone is a good idea
and one that will work if international agreements can be reached. A United Nations patrolled zone may be the
restraint necessary to halt some of the terrorist and military actions of the
two groups. Buffer zones have worked in
other countries such as Cyprus (Yiannis) and may be suitable for the situation
in Israel. I think any way you look at
it an international interjection is required to stop some of the atrocities
occurring in the country. Allowing the
Israeli government to build a dividing fence is a step in the wrong
direction. It will only encourage
terrorists to increase their efforts.
One proposal that didn’t make our list
that I think is important is the enforcement of international law in this
situation. International law has yet to
punish the Israeli government for some of the actions they have taken. United Nations resolutions have been passed
and ignored by governments in Israel, yet there is no punishment for their
refusal to change. The use of excessive
force by the Israeli military violates human rights codes the world over. The problem is nobody wants to offend the
Jewish people and be faced with the racism that follows. The Holocaust was a horrific event, but the
Israeli use of force and now electric fence is not too much better. Someone has to stand up against Israel and
force them to abide by international law.
That someone should be the international community. The situation in Israel is a very delicate
one and something that probably won’t be resolved for a long time, but letting
the atrocities continue is not going to help anyone.
APPLICATION:
The International Relations
Simulation of our class was a lot of fun and closely resembled events of the
real world. I was surprised at how
closely some of our actions were to real events. Evidence of this is the Political Eye
newspaper, where it is hard to distinguish some of the information from that of
the Toronto Star. I remember
reading the paper and not knowing if these reports were directed at our
classroom simulation or that of real life.
The combination of reality and classroom proposals were at times hard to
distinguish. I think for the most part
the representatives followed the leadership in real life, and that is what made
the simulation a close resemblance to the truth. The attacks on the United States also
resembled reality, as we were questioned repeatedly about our disagreement with
the United Nations. I wouldn’t go as far
as Yiannis in believing people developed a real opposition toward him, but
there were some heated arguments against the United States.
The simulation veered away from
reality when some nations decided to follow their own agenda. For one, Russia’s decision to aid the United
States in Iraq would never happen in real life.
This situation is the reverse of the real events. Some of the allies we made were also
contradictory to world politics. For
example, we had good relations with Iran which is unlikely in the modern system
where many feel Iran is next after Iraq.
Another step from reality was the agreement of all nations on the
necessary actions in Israel. Almost
every nation had the same five points, or at least a core group of three. In the real world this issue has people so
opposed that if any proposals were the same it would be a miracle. There was no real outrageous proposals made
that everybody disagreed with, or no proposals that were different and
new. All of our ideas were pretty much
the same, and I don’t know if this is because we were all following the lead of
a few nations or if we all just think alike.
The agreement of every country to the same proposals was unrealistic.
The simulation was an interesting
experience and one that taught me a lot about Israel and Palestine. I was well aware of the problems in Israel,
but I didn’t realize the extent of the issue and how deep the hatred was
between the two groups. I knew of the
occasional suicide bombings and violent actions, but didn’t know how many
people were being killed by these acts.
I had a general knowledge of the Middle East and this simulation gave me
a more informed understanding of the problems this part of the world
faces. I am a person who wakes up in the
morning and opens the sports section of the newspaper, but through doing this
simulation I began reading the front page and news. The simulation has made me a more informed
person and one who looks beyond the sports page to the news. It has restructured my morning routine.
Overall I thought the international
relations simulation was a big success.
It was a lot of fun and an interesting way to learn about the problems
that face our world today. The aspects
of the simulation I would definitely keep are the chat line, debate and peace
conference. The chat line was very
important to the overall success of the simulation. It allowed us to keep informed and have a
little fun at the same time. The debate
and peace conference were important to achieving the ultimate goal of the
simulation and the item we all worked for.
I wouldn’t change any of the major aspects of the simulation. One thing I might improve upon is the
instructions for the country handbook.
Parts of these instructions were unclear and confusing. Yiannis and I were often unsure exactly what
was required of us and how much was necessary.
This was particularly true for the country information section about the
social, political and economic reports.
I also did the in depth report when it was unnecessary. Another aspect I disliked was the control of
the debate. The debate was too
controlled and didn’t allow for any really heated arguments as every time they
started it would be interrupted. There
was not enough freedom in the debate.
Other than that I thought the simulation was a success and something
that should be repeated in later years.
WORKS
CITED LIST
“U.S. Aid to Israel.” www.stanford.edu/-bgiddens/usaid.htm. (April 5, 2003)
Clyde, Mark. “Israeli: US Foreign Assistance.” Congressional Research Service Issue. June 6,
2002.
“Facts about US Aid to Israel.” www.nimn.org/usaid/facts.htm. (April 5, 2003)
Katz, Gary. “Quest for Peace.” CBC News Online. www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/mideast.
(Accessed April 5, 2003)