2017 Negotiation Simulation Reflections

Summer Undergraduate Nonproliferation Program Simulation Exercise

On July 18th, 2017, the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) undergraduate interns and the Davis United World College (UWC) fellows came together for a weeklong simulation exercise led by Mr. Jean duPreez, experienced former diplomat, and an expert in arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament.. The simulation took place shortly after the adoption of the July 7 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons with the aim to engage interns and UWC fellows on ways to narrow the divide between Non-Nuclear Weapon States and states possessing nuclear weapons. Over the course of three days, interns and fellows had the opportunity to represent a country and negotiate basic principles, objectives, and steps to advance nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation. On the last day of the simulation, the participating states jointly produced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining principles and objectives on which consensus was reached. The full text of the Monterey Memorandum can be found here. Below are brief reflections by each intern and fellow on the simulation exercise.

 

Lucy Nussbaum                                                                                                        Austria          

When I showed up to a table of delegates, all representing diverse states with varying interests, I never expected we would have such a successful simulation, producing a memorandum with so many areas of consensus. In particular, as a representative of Austria, I was very pleased with the commitment to multilateralism and concrete steps towards disarmament, such as support for entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. In addition, I observed the strong tendency to resort to divisions between nuclear weapons states and non nuclear weapons states and the difficulty, on both sides, in coming to a compromise. I learned a great deal about disarmament and nonproliferation negotiations, including the importance of language and framing. I felt the simulation was an excellent way to reinforce and build upon the knowledge I have gained this summer through lectures and readings. Ultimately, I was very proud of and impressed by everyone involved and the commitment to bridge building, while still upholding states’ interests.

 

Endi Mato                                                                                                                  Australia

The nonproliferation simulation was definitely one of the most essential learning experiences from our time here at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey this summer. Whereas we have been learning every day about nonproliferation treaties and conferences, being in the position of a participating country was an entirely different experience. My country assignment was Australia, because I was curious about the dichotomy of being a pro-disarmament country in a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, while officially being under the US nuclear umbrella.

Beyond reaffirming the utmost difficulty of reaching consensus between Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS), I learnt a lot about the challenges of being one of the states in what I think of as the gray area: not possessing their own nuclear weapons but being under one of the major nuclear umbrellas. Such is the situation that my home country, Albania, is in: having dismantled its own chemical weapons after the fall of the communist regime but remaining under the NATO nuclear umbrella as a NATO member, thus being unable to fully support disarmament efforts such as the Nuclear Ban treaty. In navigating my role as one of the bridge countries, I was surprised to learn about the importance of sharing interests with both parties and thus not subscribing to either side, but rather to bridging the interests of both. This experience definitely reaffirmed for me the importance of engaging such bridge countries in future negotiations, as well as the ultimate role of simulations in understanding such complex issues.

 

Cameron Henderson                                                                         People’s Republic of China

The Nuclear Ban Treaty simulation was easily the highlight of my time at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. It presented itself as the obvious nexus between the theories we’ve learned over the past two months and practice of actively engaging those issues in a real and tangible way. Additionally, stepping into the shoes of nations other than the United States created a nuanced means of building and understanding other perspectives, particularly those of non-western states, regardless of their nuclear status. Being able to role-play as the People’s Republic of China served as an important counterweight to the predominately American understanding I had developed of nuclear deterrence, nuclear weapons, and, subsequently, nuclear disarmament.

While engaging in this simulation shone a light on many aspects of the negotiating process, such as how little leverage the non-nuclear states can sometimes posses, the largest realization I had was the critical importance of the individuals around the table, not just the states parties. There were clear leaders present for each group, but it was nothing other than personality type that really determined who that was. The opposite was also true; there were many individuals who were not as strong-willed about their ambitions for the negotiations and ultimately got bulldozed by more active members of the simulation. In this case, it was hard to discern between apathy and timidity. While I can only imagine the difficulties in making that distinction when the group is even larger, this simulation shaped the way I understand negotiations, as well as provided a newfound understanding of the role of leaders and the importance of negotiating experience.

 

Joseph Melkonian                                                                                         French Republic

As the French representative at the simulation, I had the privilege of immersing myself in a unique position to understand the fifth republic’s perspective. The MIIS library served as an invaluable resource in illuminating the French government’s positions on disarmament, as well as most facets of its nuclear weapons program, from its history and cultural connection to the ongoing salience of the force de frappe. In preparation for the simulation, I also researched French policy and formal statements regarding the recently negotiated “ban treaty,” to further initiate myself into the nuclear doctrines of a European nuclear weapons state.

Entering the simulation, I stood for France. I felt the tension of a democracy concerned with human rights refusing a humanitarian discourse threatening her sovereignty. I experienced the inner conflict between desiring cooperation and mutual understanding while holding fast to nonnegotiable positions. I engaged in reaching out across the aisle, learning strategies for cooperation as well as negotiation. Thanks to the instruction of Jean duPreez, and through meeting with fellow interns outside of the “official” talks, I learned the importance of interpersonal communication. I came to see that personality and politeness can affect outcomes as much as can policy. Through the crafting of our final document, I also came to realize the power of words, ambiguity enabling agreement, and clarity preventing confusion.

I am grateful to have had the privilege of participating in the simulation at CNS, and I am thankful we reached enough agreement to form a consensus document. Would that present ministers of state do likewise. Nevertheless, through this process I came to understand not only the chasms which states must cross to cooperate and the difficulty of diplomacy, but I also learned that reward can be reached through dialogue.

 

Brandon Mok                                                                                                India

The simulation was instrumental in opening my eyes to the complexities and difficulties with negotiating even a simple memorandum of understanding on nuclear weapons between different countries. As the delegate of India, I was responsible for ensuring that the Indian stance on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament was conveyed in the final document. As we discussed the fine points of word choices in various clauses, I realized how contentious almost every aspect of nonproliferation and disarmament was. Even though it seems a given that all non-nuclear weapons states agree that nonproliferation and disarmament are desirable, and that all nuclear weapons states seem to want to retain their weapons, they differ greatly on how they want their views to be expressed in a joint memorandum. In order to effectively compromise, we received excellent guidance on how to negotiate and advance our country’s position from Mr. Jean DuPreez, an instructor of the simulation and a former official of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization. I’m grateful for his help and Ms. Masako Toki’s arrangement of this simulation in order to expand our understanding of the important issue of nonproliferation and disarmament.

 

Andrew Linder                                                                                 Indonesia

The simulation was a great way for me to realize how much I have learned over the course of this summer. If you had asked us to participate in a similar simulation in early June, I think the room would have been silent, lacking meaningful dialogue. Instead, our mock Monterey conference was lively, exciting, and comprehensive. I was pleased with my own ability to keep up with what was being discussed, and impressed by the knowledge of my peers. The simulation was not just a way to quantify how much we’ve learned, but an opportunity to use our tools in new ways by finding “real-world” applications.

As the representative of Indonesia, I feel like I experienced firsthand the frustrations involved with being a non-nuclear weapons state in nuclear negotiations. Even in our unlikely scenario (of states possessing nuclear weapons engaging in talks about the Ban Treaty), it was clear from the start that I didn’t have much negotiating power. I banded together with the delegate from South Africa to develop a plan, and together we put together a group of the supporters of the Ban Treaty to draft a document with a list of demands. Of course in the real world this document would hardly be taken seriously by nuclear weapons states, but in the simulation it was, in my opinion, a successful way to shift some of the conversation to topics we wanted to promote.

I saw how there is power in numbers in a negotiating situation like the one in our simulation, and I think that has some real world applications. I believe that the more countries are committed to the Ban Treaty, and the longer it is well-established, nuclear weapons states may have no choice but to eventually acknowledge what the rest of the world considers a norm. While current negotiations between states with nuclear weapons and those without are often unsatisfying and challenging, my hope is that future leaders, like those participating in the simulation, will take the spirit of negotiations and collaboration and make lasting change towards total disarmament.

 

Ian Wilkinson                                                                                    Islamic Republic of Iran

As the representative of Iran, I found the simulation to be engaging, stimulating, and entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the opportunities to fervently support disarmament, harshly criticize some states, and to seek out ways to “kill” the agreement “with kindness” in order to protect my interests. In doing so, I came to appreciate Iran’s unique position in international disarmament negotiations. Before this simulation, I only saw Iran through an American (and, thus, often negative) lens – as I did research and argued for my position, I tried to change that and think about Iran’s interests and motivations. As Harper Lee wrote, “you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view […] until you climb inside his skin and walk around in it.” I believe that her words really exemplify my experience representing Iran during the simulations.

Overall, I think that many of my fellow interns tried to really consider and embrace their countries’ positions. This made the three-day event very spirited, as we all strongly defended our positions while seeking to persuade others to join us. Because we weren’t bound by previous statements, ties to other countries, or instructions from our countries’ leaders, we also had an extremely productive session. I’m proud of the agreement that we worked hard to forge and I hope that a similar process will soon take place on a global setting.

 

Seiyeon Ji                                                                                                       Japan (Chair)

The simulation on disarmament was both a challenging and rewarding experience that allowed me to apply the theories and lessons we had been learning about weapons of mass destruction and the importance of nonproliferation. I was impressed by the scope of my peers’ understandings of nuclear, nonproliferation and disarmament issues and technologies, as well as their abilities to apply their knowledge in a political setting involving extensive negotiation and compromise.

As the chair of the negotiation simulation, I was struck by how quickly the divide formed between the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) and states possessing nuclear weapons, and the difficulty of trying to bridge that gap through dialogue. During the first session, it became clear to me that neither side was listening to each other, and was instead pushing for its own respective agenda. Almost immediately following the first session, the participating states divided themselves based on the status of their nuclear weapons possession, and consequently, very little dialogue was being exchanged across this divide. During the sessions, this meant that it was difficult to stay focused on issues that states could come to an agreement on; instead, the conversations frequently diverted to include other controversial issues that only deepened the divide. I learned that being able to focus on issues where there can be a convergence of views was a critical first-step towards building confidence and ensuring continued dialogue. The particular use of language was also another interesting component of the simulation. Language was powerful in that it could single-handedly deter or encourage cooperation about a specific issue. It was also interesting to see how states resorted to both specificity and vagueness of language to avoid commitment to an action or an acknowledgement of an issue.

As a representative of Japan, I came to a deeper understanding of how its historical experiences and geostrategic considerations continue to drive its often controversial, but necessary, policies on disarmament. Moreover, I sensed a genuine desire by Japan to utilize its unique position to take a leading role in bridging the gap between NNWS and states possessing nuclear weapons. While many have questioned Japan’s credibility as a “bridge-builder” following its ambiguous position on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, I hope that this simulation is reflective of Japan’s potential to continue to encourage collaboration on disarmament issues.

 

Julia Flemming-Dresser                                                                                            Mexico

I found the simulation to be an incredibly useful experience just in terms of understanding the complexity of negotiating high-stakes agreements in a manner that is both productive and that serves your own country’s interests. I represented Mexico – a country that has by all accounts been at the forefront of humanitarian initiatives regarding nuclear weapons, and that I also grew up in. It was interesting immersing myself in the scientific and political factors relevant to major nuclear agreements, and to think strategically about how to reach a compromise while retaining a strong national position. It was also interesting watching a pattern emerge of major powers semi-paralyzing the negotiation process, and how that vacuum was filled by strong personalities determined to take the initiative. The simulation really allowed me to understand what a complex challenge global leaders face trying to balance national interests, alliances, and historical ties and enmity. I’m really thankful for what ended up being a really fun, informative experience!

 

Rachael Kretsch                                                                                            The Netherlands

I think one of the most important things I learned through this simulation is the importance of compromise. While strong opinions can motivate an initiative, when it comes down to sitting at the negotiation table, it is paramount to propose practical solution that gradually prod the policies and actions of nations towards your objectives. Having been part of the effort to draft the language of the Monterrey Memorandum with our Chair, I have obtained an enhanced appreciation for the power of language. Previously, I saw the difference of interpretation of language of treaties as something that divides nations, however, through this drafting process, I have realized the power of language manipulation to reconcile differing opinions, albeit often insincerely, which enables the dialogue to continue.

Having grown up in The Netherlands it was interesting to look at the disarmament issue from the nuanced view of the government. I appreciate the challenges The Netherlands faces in attempting to uphold the desire of civilians to disarm while maintaining its NATO obligations. I valued my unique place in this week’s conference as a nation that is a strong supporter of nuclear disarmament, but, also as a nation that acknowledges disarmament must be conducted safely, with practical steps, and likely cannot be forced.

Speaking as a representative of The Netherlands, we are delighted that there have been concrete commitments by all states to continue dialogue towards a global goal of world free of nuclear weapons. Moving forward we would like to discuss increased transparency, decreasing dependence on nuclear deterrence doctrine, and reducing risks of nuclear accidents by, for example, taking nuclear weapons off of high alert. We will continue our effort to start discussion about nonproliferation and disarmament within NATO. We are a strong advocate for removing the boundaries blocking arms control and disarmament discussions, particularly bilateral discussions between the US and Russia as well as the DPRK. The nuclear weapon states present mentioned modernization and missile defense systems as elements necessary to be addressed in these discussions. While this was not the correct forum to introduce these issues, we recommend all states possessing nuclear weapons consider the barriers they have put up, and how a compromise could facilitate negotiations.

 

Gabriel Dunatov                                                                                                       New Zealand

I reflect on our final Memorandum of Understanding with mixed emotions. It was an important step in bridging divides between states in possession of nuclear weapons and states without nuclear weapons. I did appreciate the efforts of states like China and Russia to come to the table and compromise on issues like education. In hindsight, the fact that the simulation took place and produced a document of any kind is a positive sign. Yet I struggle to view the Memorandum as a step forward when so much of it is mired in minutia, exceptions, and reservations. The fact that the Chinese and Russian delegations could not bring themselves to acknowledge the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons was a sad, if accurate, representation of reality. The solution, an acknowledgment of the NPT 2010 review conference’s mention of humanitarian impact, was a hollow victory. Without compromise on such a fundamental aim of the Ban-Treaty-signatory states, it was impossible to move forward on the more ambitious goals of the Ban Treaty itself.

As the delegate for New Zealand in the simulation, I represented what I saw as my state’s greatest concerns: humanitarian impact, especially concerning the disproportionate effect on indigenous groups, education, the Ban Treaty and existing Nuclear Free Zones, and reconciling states with and without nuclear weapons. I was glad to see that some of these concerns, especially relating to indigenous groups, education, and Nuclear Free Zones, made themselves into the final document. It was difficult to see New Zealand’s primary concerns, humanitarian impact and the Ban Treaty, presented as areas of little-to-no compromise. It was also a challenge to represent the populist urgency that gave non-nuclear weapon states momentum in the real world. Without this momentum, Ban-Treaty-signatory-states were not empowered to make demands of states in possession of nuclear weapons. In future simulations, I would be interested in finding a way to manifest this urgency. Personally, representing New Zealand shifted my perceptions of the treaty. Before the simulation, my interest in US-Russian relations influenced my doubtful view of efforts to ban nuclear weapons. After the simulation, I was caught up in the idealism, urgency, and what I saw as genuine empathy that guided New Zealand diplomats throughout the Ban Treaty negotiations.

 

Hayley Manges                                                                                              Russian Federation

During our recent simulation of a negotiation following the UNGA’s adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, one thing became strikingly clear to me: consensus in the field of nonproliferation and disarmament is not easy to find. While this might be something we all can understand in theory, having thirteen independent voices representing a diverse array of agendas during the simulation emphasized this in a tangible way. When accommodating so many varied opinions, consensus is only possible through compromise. I was struck by how in order for every participant to agree, no one party could ever be fully satisfied by the outcome.

I also became cognizant of how important personalities and language can be in a multilateral negotiation like the one we simulated. Even in the short three-day length of the simulation, it was possible to see how the priorities of specific delegates influences the topics they are or are not willing to compromise on in the final document. Similarly, I was surprised by how often times we were able to come to consensus by changing only one or two words.

Perhaps the most interesting part of representing the Russian Federation was coming to understand and advocate the position of a state I do not always agree with. By learning more about security concerns often cited by Russia, it made me think about challenges to disarmament in a concrete context. Namely, that steps towards disarmament are influenced by the changing global security environment.

 

Charlotte Lawrence                                                                          Republic of South Africa

The simulation was one of the most engaging and educational activities I participated in here at CNS. In addition to thoroughly learning the positions of the different countries involved, we learned some of difficulties and strategies of diplomatic bargaining through a surprisingly realistic series of sessions. In representing South Africa, I enjoyed taking a particularly strong stance in favor of disarmament and nonproliferation.

In a sense, the simulation was unsatisfying in that our final memorandum of understanding, while thoughtful and thorough, was ultimately both fairly modest and far more progressive a document than we could have hoped to see in a real negotiation between the countries present. While inspirational in demonstrating the degree to which cooperation is possible, the simulation also highlighted how far the real world is from its cooperative potential.

 

Chair’s Concluding Notes

At a time when the international community is deeply concerned with the challenges of disarmament, nuclear arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, the interns and fellows have found this simulation exercise to be particularly timely and insightful. Through both heated and candid discussions, we learned the challenges of understanding states’ different perspectives as well as the potential for open dialogue to create momentum for collective efforts toward global non-proliferation and disarmament. I hope that the success of this simulation and the lessons learned from it will extend beyond our education and influence our contributions to the future nonproliferation and disarmament field.