REFLECTION

How was this issue significant to your nation?

Both issues in the Middle East are of significance to Britain.

The Israel/Palestine issue is significant because Britain because of the Balfour Declaration. It was the joint efforts of Britain and the US that led to the creation of Israel. Britain wanted the US to join with them in support of WW1. Since the Zionist Movement was taking form in both US and Britain, both nations decided to appease their Jewish populations by secretly agreeing to create a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, a British Mandate at the time. By Britain agreeing to this, the US would join the war in support of Britain.

Although Britain played a fundamental role in this creation of Israel, it is not the sole source of blame for the conflicts in the Middle East today. In fact, the British government felt obligated that the Passfield White Paper of October 21, 1930 was an effort to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to preserve the indigenous peoples of that region (Palestinians). In other words, “The British government even considered that this clause might obligate a Jewish state to subsidize an Arab state.” (Isseroff).

The Kashmir issue is significant to the entire international community because India and Pakistan have both declared themselves to be nuclear powers. The hostilities and deep-seeded hatreds of the two peoples who fighting over the same piece of land could be the spark of a nuclear war, one that would ensure the mutual destruction of the two states and quite possibly the entire world. However, it was obvious in our classroom simulation that the Kashmir issue took to the “back burner” in the peace conferences held by Canada and France, despite this pressing urgency. Concerns of nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan were first addressed in the classroom simulation by Great Britain in the post dated March 25, 2004 regarding what topics would be discussed at the following day’s conference:

“2.) Both parties’ possession of nuclear weaponry, the threat that they pose to one another and the international community, as well as their hindrance to potential peace talks between India and Pakistan
I.e. in 1999 India tested AGNI II a 200kT warhead and Pakistan tested GHAURI II a 30kT warhead
What has become of these weapons? What are India and Pakistan's current intentions?”

This concern was promptly brushed off by both India and Pakistan on March 26, 2004 as simply “a security measure.” It was not brought up again until the press conference almost one week later on April 1, 2004 by Samantha of Media, where it was once again declared simply “a security measure” by both states.

What were the policy objectives of your nation?

Britain was supportive of the creation of a Palestinian state not for reasons of sympathy in the simulation (as suggested by Katie) but because Britain feels that the creation of a Palestinian state is the only way to create peace, both in the simulation and in real life (contrary to Saheb’s claims of Britain not its following real-life agendas within the simulation).

Britain’s policies towards Kashmir were intended to maintain an environment that would be stable enough for a referendum to be held. This referendum is to determine the fate of Kashmir and its people. In the simulation, Britain condemned the militant activity in Kashmir (from both states), stating that they, along with the presence of nuclear weapons in both India and Pakistan, were key hindrances to any peace talks and the enforcement of a ceasefire.

Who were your allies and adversaries on these issues?

As the conferences transpired, our allies and adversaries began to materialize. They were not obvious in the very beginning, but as the simulations continued, I drew the following conclusions:

1. In real life, the US and UK are very united in the war on terrorism in Iraq. Since Saheb is the stickler for accuracy in state policies between real life and the simulation, I found his and Kyle’s continuous attempts of instigating a hatred between the US and UK to be quite hypocritical.

2. Despite our vital role in the creation of Israel (in real life) by signing the Balfour Declaration, the individuals representing Israel in the simulation essentially ignored us from the very beginning (e.g. on the first day of the simulation we were mingling with all of the other countries but when we tried to talk to Israel, Britain’s brainchild, they did not regard nor respect us enough to discuss their views with us. However, I should say that this was more on Kosta’s part than Katie’s, because I do recall Katie, Shari, and I discussing some things). I decided that this was due to the resentment left over from the first Country Simulation. This friction between Britain and Israel continued and escalated through the conferences due to Israel’s close ties with the US in real life, in the simulation, the temperaments of the individuals representing US and Israel (specifically Kosta, Kyle, and Saheb), and previous resentments from the first country simulation.

3. In the simulation, Britain’s relations with Canada remained somewhat neutral. Although Stephanie very obviously sided with the US/Israel camp (more remnants of the first Country Simulation? She was a part of Hegepolis, headed up by Kosta who was now representing Israel), I thought that Canada offering to facilitate a peace conference to be commendable. On the flipside, I think that a possible intention for Canada’s peace conference was to aid in the effort to create a peace plan that was favourable only to Israel and the US.

4. Britain offered its support and financial aid to Palestine in the simulation because I feel that in the simulation and in real life that the only way to peace was to establish a Palestinian state. Therefore, we are allying ourselves with Palestine. Palestine did little to acknowledge this alignment and support, and Israel/US used it as ammunition to further strain our already-tense relations with them in the simulation. This is definitely not in accordance with real life because the US would never do that, seeing that Britain is essentially their only ally in Iraq.

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

Strategies that we employed included staying neutral, calm, and composed in the beginning to gauge the situation from a perspective that was as objective as possible. This strategy backfired because other nations (particularly the US and Israel) began to mistake our serenity as a statement of weakness and ignorance and began to incorrectly regard us as pushovers.

Our second strategy was to be assertive. We ended up using this strategy more than we had originally anticipated because of the obnoxious behaviour of US in particular. Our definition of being assertive was to diplomatically discuss peace plans because we saw the US’ incessant banter to be much ado about nothing. However, as this incessant banter began deteriorating to derogatory statements towards France in particular (who were took the liberty of facilitating a peace conference by hosting it, putting an “indigenous master peace plan” into writing, something that had yet to be done by anyone in the international community, and providing delicious refreshments). I perceived this to be a personal attack on Natalie, rather than on the political agenda of France (in the simulation), by Kyle and Saheb (they essentially ignored Kristan) and so I felt it was the right opportunity to retaliate by telling them at the Press Conference that since they are finally given their precious speaking time at the press conference that it is in their best interest to use it wisely by saying something intelligent for once.

Did you reach your objectives? Why or why not?

Our objective of promoting peace by creating a Palestinian state was met, but not through the best route possible, which is not necessarily a bad thing since “the ends justify the means.”

The peace plan that was accepted by Israel and the Palestinians was the identical to the only plan ever discussed in this simulation. That is fine and good in itself, but if it was going to be that simple, then that would render the hostility throughout the entire simulation (perpetrated by the US and prolonged by Israel) to be utterly useless and counterproductive in progressing the peace process—it was merely an act of intimidation towards individuals in the class, not the states represented the simulation. Acts of intimidation—which were perpetrated by the US against France in the simulation through the theft of a baguette on March 11, 2004 (which was eventually returned to France towards the end of the period), and through the continuous verbal harassments throughout the simulation conferences—are regarded as very serious offences in the York Region Board of Education’s “Safe Schools” policy:

“5. b) A student may be suspended from the school if the student commits one or more of the following infractions while at school or engaged in a school related activity:

(1) engaging in conduct that is injurious to the physical and mental well-being of others;

(2) engaging in conduct that is injurious to the moral tone of the school;”

I am not suggesting that the individuals representing USA should be suspended because they were completing their assignment of role-playing the US (which they did a wonderful job of) in a simulation, because that would be completely absurd. Instead, I am pointing out the severity of the means used to achieve peace in our classroom simulation. These means were unnecessary because nothing new (pertaining to the actual peace plan) was achieved through it. The identical peace plan proposed previously in the international community and put into writing by France was accepted without many compromising amendments. I take comfort in knowing that I am not alone in thinking that an organized group (Kyle and Saheb representing USA) targeting a single individual (Natalie) for intimidation is wrong. However, despite much of the raging irrelevancy in the simulation, the final peace plan included the creation of a Palestinian state, thus Britain’s objective was met. Britain immediately supported this decision by offering financial aid in support of Palestine.

In the Kashmir conflict, Britain’s profile is far less prominent. In the simulation, we reflected the real-life role of Britain by trying to foster an environment in which a referendum of the Kashmiri people could take place to decide their fate: join Pakistan, join India, or become an independent state. This objective was also achieved. Even though it may not be the solution to peace in Kashmir between Indians and Pakistanis, it is a step in the right direction.

APPLICATION

In what ways did you see that the Simulation mirrored real events, in which ways did it veer away from reality?

The simulation mirrored real events because of the presence of the incredible passion possessed by individuals representing their respective states. This was particularly true for those who’s heritage is directly linked to one of the conflicts (e.g. Zena, Uzair). For myself, who does not have a direct heritage link to these conflicts, I, too, became engrossed in the conferences and the entire simulation.

The simulation veered away from reality because the individuals representing the US went to great lengths to be reckless. The epitome of this recklessness appears in the hatred they perpetrated towards Britain. Given that this is a simulation, there is room for creative control and the dynamics of the simulated international community will be vastly different from the real international community because of the existing relationships between students. However, the fact remains that the relationship between the US and Britain is vastly different from the one in real life.

What was the most important element that you learned about the Middle East?

There are three very important elements that I learned about the Middle East through this simulation:

1. The severity of the conflict

Being a Chinese-Canadian in Markham, Ontario, Canada, I have been ignorant towards Middle East conflicts that exist between Israel and the Palestinians and between the Indians and Pakistanis until I participated in this simulation. I found it difficult to understand the intricacies of the issues in 30-second soundbites on the news because I lacked and understanding of the history behind the conflicts. I certainly could not comprehend the severity and magnitude of the conflicts until I saw the passion of individuals who were involved in the Israel/Palestinian conflict (especially Zena), and the ludicrous means that state actors would use to secure their political interests (eg. USA and Israel’s plan of “temporarily” relocating Palestinians to Iraq).

2. The volatility of the situation

This is especially true in the Kashmir issue. In retrospect, I feel that some resolution pertaining to the nuclear weapons of India and Pakistan should have been achieved. The nuclear capabilities of these two states is a key reason why it is one of the most important conflicts in the Middle East today. Although recently, a ceasefire is working, this could change at any moment due to militant activity which governments technically have no control over (I say technically because there are accusations of government-ordered militants). Also, the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the chance of an accidental use of nuclear warheads (e.g. the possibility of a militant group discovers a way to detonate the government’s nuclear weapons, although remote, remains a possibility).

3. These conflicts are very difficult to resolve in real life

The peace plan achieved in the classroom simulation is completely unrealistic because it would never happen in real life. In fact many peace plans similar to it have failed because there is never a completely united consensus (of millions of people between two states with contradictory interests) on one decision. In real life, there are always going to be rebel factions and militants who will oppose government decisions and decide to advance their own interests by means of terrorism and violence. The only reason why the peace plan was achieved in our classroom is because of the inherent inability for the simulated international community to follow up on it. The prevailing condition of the peace plan is the complete halt and obliteration of Palestinian militant and terrorist activities. There is no combat element to the simulation, and because there is also a time limit on the simulation, and so it is assumed that this peace plan is perfect, when in reality, it is not.

Please list suggestions for future IR Simulations:

What should stay?

I think that the IR simulation we participated in was very informative. All the current elements should remain intact.

I especially liked the Press Conference facilitated by the IR Controllers and the Media because it put everyone on the spot and forced them to answer questions. Also, I felt it was (or was intended to be) the most unbiased conference of the entire simulation because it was not hosted by one state. Unfortunately, we ran out of time but it was undoubtedly my favourite aspect of the entire simulation.

What should change?

In future simulations, it is imperative that the objectiveness of the IR Controllers is ensured. It was very obvious to many people in the international community (myself included) that they had a very obvious US-bias. There were instances where the US would speak rudely and out of turn, but the IR Controllers would turn a blind eye, but if that action was committed by anyone else, they would be reprimanded. There is the ever-persistent argument of “It is a simulation and many sources of power in the real world has a pro-US slant” but at the same time the entire purpose of having IR Controllers was to maintain a degree of order and fairness to every participant in the simulation. I understand that the simulation is not necessarily an accurate representation of reality since the US is a hegemonic power that ultimately controls just about everything, but the point of having the Controllers was to counteract this effect in the classroom simulation. Because of the obvious bias the IR Controllers had, no one in the international community (myself included) dared to confront them on their consistent misspelling of the word “mandatory” (which was particularly annoying) and the general shoddy spelling and grammar in the IR Chat Room reflected a careless demeanour. However, they did an excellent job in answering e-mails. I have e-mailed them twice and both times I received very timely and concise responses.

I do not feel that the Media coverage in this simulation was adequate. The articles are few and far between, many links on the site are dead, and when I requested information from them (an official account of the final peace plans, which had not been posted to the best of my knowledge at the time of the request), they did not respond.

Every participating country needs to take an active role. There were some countries that did not contribute to the peace process at all or contributed very little. The representatives of Syria were not always present at debates and conferences, and when they were, they seemed extremely ill-prepared and consequently, scarcely participated.

I found the mysterious presence Encyclo/Encylo/Enclo/Adrian Harris to be unnecessary and destructive. His ridiculous misspellings of countries (including lack of capitalizations) were very disrespectful and even slightly obscene. His bad grammar made the posts very hard to read and they were perceived by me to be disrespectful and perhaps even abusive to our simulation (i.e. he did not think it was important enough to type properly), whether he intended for it to be or not. He also falsified information in an effort to justify his spelling and grammatical errors by lying about typing an entry at 1:30am when it was actually timestamped at 11:45pm. He also said he had come home from “6 hours of work and 9 hours of community service.” Since the post was dated on a Monday (March 22^nd, 2004), that would mean he also had 6 hours of school, as well as a 2-hour rehearsal on Monday nights for Sr. Stage Band (which I am also in). Those activities would consume 23 hours of his day, and so his claim sounds quite farfetched. Also, an outside force could be harmful to the developments of the simulation. Since he has already participated in a previous edition of the simulation, he should only observe in this one.

New Ideas?

In an effort to maintain objectivity, future role of the IR Controller could be better if it was played by the teacher as opposed to students.

Past students should not be allowed to participate in the simulation in any way with the exception of observing.

If there were two representatives of Russia, perhaps their concerns and contributions to the community would have been more coherent and relevant.

WORKS CITED LIST

“International Relations Chat Room.” CPW4U World Politics: IR Simulation. < http://books.dreambook.com/worldpolitics/irsim2004.html> (4 April 2004).

Isseroff, Ami. “The Balfour Declaration.” MidEast Web. <http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.html> (26 March 2004).

“The Passfield White Paper.” MidEast Web. <http://www.mideastweb.org/passfieldwp.htm> (4 April 2004).

“Safe Schools.” York Region Board of Education. < http://www.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/pdfs/w/innovation/safeschools/YRDSBSafeSchools.pdf> (4 April 2004).