The Nuts & Bolts of the Simulation
This gaming exercise simulates a policy-making environment in which time is an issue and creative problem solving is required. Throughout the simulation, students must act in a diplomatic fashion befitting a delegate from their assigned country-team. Students are expected to explore proposals and ideas over ICONSnet. There are ten conferences -- two conferences for each of five issues areas. At the first conference for an issue area, the students will work to clarify their ideas. Also, students will be given the "task" of drafting a plan of action for solving the problem at hand prior to the start of and/or during the second conference session. Conference agendas are posted on the CPIN web-site.

The following nations will be simulated:

To begin your research on each of these countries you might want to take a look at the information available on the CPIN WebPages under Research Library. Click here and choose Research Library on the left-hand side of the page at http://www.lib.uconn.edu/~mboyer/.  Please note that other countries may be added to the simulation prior to its starting date. You will be notified by SIMCON in the event that additional countries are added to the simulation.

This simulation exercise can be thought of as a set of interlocking subgames. Each subgame focuses on a particular issue that is outlined in this scenario. The exercise is intended to focus on a few primary issues in the world and how these issues are related; it is not intended to cover all international issues that exist today. The main subgames are:

Although the issue areas are presented as distinct, remember that the issues are intricately related. For example, global population issues affect development and the global environment. It may be less clear that discussions of development must take environmental, health and human rights considerations into account.

There will be two, one-hour conferences scheduled for each of the issue areas to be negotiated in this simulation, as well as a debriefing conference for all participants. Remember that your country will not be participating in every conference. Simcon will chair these conferences. These conferences will be held from days of the week 2:30pm until 3:30pm EST beginning October 30 (see Conference Schedule). All countries will attend eight conferences, covering four issue areas. Even if your country is not invited to a particular conference, you may still discuss the issue over the regular system. Please note---If your country feels it is vital to your national interest to be included in a particular conference, you may petition Simcon to also be included in that conference.

It is common for teams to begin the simulation in a passive mode with plans to respond after other country-teams take the lead. This creates an unrealistic foreign policy atmosphere and ensures a slow start to the exercise. Students are urged to send initial policy statements on every issue in which their country is involved on the first day of the simulation. In addition, students are urged to have their ideas developed and a plan of action set prior to each conference. Flexibility and knowledge are necessary for country-teams to react quickly to new developments during real-time conferences. Each team should continue to send daily messages on their issues.

Communiqués -- at minimum each country-team will issue five including one from each topic area: international crime, humanitarian aid and intervention, global warming, trade, and global population. Country delegates should send well-developed messages to the global community each week of the simulation. These messages are diplomatic statements of your country-team's official position on each of the four issue areas. A good negotiator takes into consideration many factors, including those of implementation and enforcement of the proposal.

Bilateral Negotiations -- in addition to the global communiqués, each team must actively engage in bilateral negotiations. Your country-team should send messages to other countries in an attempt to forge alliances and receive feedback on your draft proposals. As in the real world, diplomats attempt to win the favor of other nations through bilateral negotiations prior to global conferences.

Hint -- your country has a goal/s as do all the other countries involved. As a result of this reality, you and your fellow country-team-mates might want to consider the following questions: what issues are you willing to compromise? What compromises will you be willing to make? What compromises do you and your teammates think the other countries will consider reasonable? Remember that each country has a different perspective and different priorities.

A Successful Simulation -- The key to a successful simulation is the research that a country team does throughout the program. You will need a thorough understanding of policy and issues in order to strike a balance between creativity and realism in the negotiations. The setting for this simulation is summer 2001. The simulation is set in the future to encourage you to be creative in developing your own policies instead of duplicating real-life events and decisions as they happen.

This scenario is an introduction to the issues you will be discussing in the ICONS simulation. It also gives a very brief overview of some of the interests and policies of other nations in the program. The scenario is not meant to be the principal resource for the development of your policies or the conduct of your negotiations. It is a starting point. You now need to research your own nation's history, foreign policy, and relations with the other countries involved in this simulation. After the program begins, real world developments will not affect the ICONS simulation. Your challenge will be to come up with a better agreement than the experts have found.

The increasingly interdependent world of the 1990s was characterized by fewer trade and border restrictions. Global interdependence coupled with the advent of truly global financial and telecommunications systems has created a new brand of criminals – international criminals who extend their operations beyond national borders. Drug trafficking, illegal arms sales, and terrorism are seen as legitimate threats to national security, while the ability of international crime groups to transfer money between countries allows them to continue to elude the grip of traditional crime prevention entities. Their operations are similar to that of multinational corporations, with global reach and infrastructure.

The production of and trafficking in drugs is a global concern as illicit drug cultivation, processing, sales, and use are all intricately related to criminal activity and social degradation. Many Latin American countries and some areas of Asia have been transformed into primary supply sources for the U.S. and European drug markets by powerful criminal organizations that make huge profits from the trade.

China, India and other Asian countries face a serious drug problem from the abuse of opium, which is grown and processed locally. The illicit export of opium based products has drawn many Asian nations into the international efforts to control drug trafficking and related criminal activities. Many African countries, especially Nigeria, are involved in the drug trade as transshipment points.

It remains unclear which strategy or combination of strategies is best suited to reduce narcotics production and exports. Each strategy has its limitations. Coca eradication is particularly problematic because of the harsh environmental and political side effects, while crop substitution requires subsidizing farmers to guarantee that they switch to the production of legal crops. Often, aggressive law enforcement efforts have led only to a swamping of the judicial system and overcrowding of prisons. In many areas of production and processing, the law enforcement officials themselves are being ‘paid off’ by the drug traffickers. Most producer countries argue that the only viable solution to the drug crisis is reduced demand in developed countries, claiming that the market for these substances has driven the supply sectors in their countries to increase production.

Environmental issues are inherently international as natural resources are "global commons" that are shared among all members of the world community. Air pollution caused by one nation affects other nations, as does acid rain and deforestation. Nation-states do, however, claim that international attempts to protect the environment infringe on sovereignty. A general lack of world consensus and leadership in this arena gives non-profit groups greater influence, with Greenpeace as an example.  Addressing environment-related issues is already a sticky business, without taking into consideration the division between EDCs and LDCs. When matters of differing levels of development are considered, sustainable development puts an even larger burden on developing countries.

The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil began a negotiation process on a number of pressing international environmental concerns, among them global warming and biodiversity. Billed as a landmark of environmental progress, it achieved far less than originally hoped. Nevertheless, important issues facing the environment were discussed, and important agreements were reached. These agreements were:

In April 1995, 120 countries agreed to hold talks on reducing emissions, which contribute to global warming. This agreement to hold talks is referred to as the Berlin Mandate. Subsequent to this agreement and the talks that followed, the 1992 Rio Declaration was signed. The signatories of the Rio Declaration agreed to reduce emissions by the year 2000. This component of the Rio Declaration was followed in December 1997 by the Kyoto Accords, signed in Kyoto, Japan.

In December 1997, 38 industrialized countries agreed to adopt binding targets for reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases believed to be responsible for global warming by signing the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Control.

The United States committed to a 7 percent reduction from the base year 1990, while Japan committed to a 6 percent reduction. The largest percentage reduction by signatories is that of several European countries which committed to an 8 percent reduction. Developing countries, making up the rest of the 160 parties to the protocol, are under no obligation to begin reductions. At this early date, the effect of the Kyoto conference remains unclear. Some observers see the agreement reached as a necessary first step to alleviating the problem, while some critics claim that the agreement contains too many loopholes and not enough specificity on how it will be implemented.

Whether the signatory countries will ratify the protocol is one of the biggest outstanding issues. Although the results of Kyoto are consistent with a 1995 agreement that rich countries should act to cut emissions before discussing what poorer countries should do, critics in industrialized countries claim that not requiring developing countries to reduce is unfair, and prevents real progress from being made. (Emission levels in developing countries are expected to overtake those of the developed world in about 15 years.) Developing countries, though, claim that the industrialized countries are responsible for global warming, and that they themselves need the time that the industrialized countries had to concentrate on economic development.

The Clinton Administration was active in the drafting and signing of the Kyoto Accords in 1998. One reason for this effort was that the developed countries, while committing to reducing their own CO₂ by 50% by 2005, were able to secure commitments from the developing nations to adopt more stringent environmental controls. The developing nations had been resisting such restrictions for many years, arguing first that the developed nations created most of the pollution and second that by definition the developed nations possess the means--both financial and technical--to deal with the emissions problem most effectively.

The Clinton Administration has yet to bring the treaty before the U.S. Senate for ratification. President Clinton has said that he will not do so until the developing nations vow to maintain their own commitment under Kyoto. But even if the developed world were immediately to initiate measures to meet their Kyoto commitments, many think it impossible to reduce CO₂ emissions by the required 50%. Some critics of Clinton environmental policy, though, believe that the administration also thinks the emission levels are unrealistic and that by gaining Senate approval, it would force the U.S. to comply with an impossible set of regulations. Thus, it is unclear whether the Kyoto Accords will actually gain implementation in the near future.

Scientists have warned that the earth is experiencing global warming. Indeed, last year was one of the warmest on record. Global warming has many environmental implications including rising oceans and loss of land to the oceans, and a negative impact on existing plant and animal life. Most agree that something needs to be done but cannot agree on what needs to be done.

The countries that agreed to reductions now have to figure out how they are going to achieve their goals. There is, of course, concern that the costs of reduction could prove economically detrimental. The agreement includes provisions for a system for industrialized countries to trade emissions credits, but the details of how such a system would operate remain unresolved. (An emissions credits trading system is an attempt to provide free-market incentives to cut pollution and encourage technological innovation.)

The year 1998 marked the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The UDHR guarantees many individual, social, economic, and political rights, including equal protection under law, a fair hearing, presumption of innocence, free movement, to marry and found a family, to social security, to work, to join trade unions, to an adequate standard of living for health and well-being, and to education. Subsequent UN efforts, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have further expanded the concept of human rights.

Almost every nation of the world values some concept of human rights – defining and protecting and enforcing those rights. One of the principal problems in the protection of human rights lies in the inability of governments to agree on exactly what constitutes human rights. The definition of human rights still remains a subject of international debate as evidenced during the June 1993 International Conference on Human Rights. Western nations, including the U.S., continue to define human rights largely in political terms. Many developing countries maintain that economic rights to food, shelter and education supercede rights of free speech and representation. The debate over the nature of the international definition of human rights stymied any real progress in the 1993 Human Rights Conference.

In addition to the problem of defining human rights, the nations of the world are constantly debating which countries are violating human rights. The common targets of criticism are China, Cuba, North Korea, Israel, and the military governments of Africa, and Latin America. The U.S., however, has also been labeled a human rights violator for having the death penalty. Mexico has been criticized for political intimidation, Brazil for its war on street children, and Germany for its treatment of immigrants.

Even after nations agree on whether another country is violating human rights, it remains difficult to determine how to encourage change. The concept of sovereignty prevents one nation from interfering with the domestic affairs of another. Yet the world as a whole has determined that some cases of human rights abuse warrant international attention regardless of sovereignty. The Tiananmen Square incident in the PRC and apartheid in South Africa are two examples of human rights issues in which many nations of the world felt justified in becoming involved.

As nations discuss human rights standards and violations, they must consider what can and should be done to protect human rights on an international scale. Countries may, however, hold different views on the issue of human rights because of their cultures or particular political conditions. For example, some Southeast Asian leaders deny the accusation of human rights violation by asserting their "Asian values" to be different from the value Western nations place on human rights and democracy. Hence, as in every other international effort to monitor and influence human rights, the issues of sovereignty and the question of enforcement weigh heavily on the debate.

Humanitarian aid and intervention are gray areas in international affairs because different countries have different notions regarding humanitarian policies.  At what point a country should become involved in another country's affairs is a matter of some debate and may violate a country's sovereignty as protected by international law.   Situations occur almost daily where humanitarian aid and intervention are needed.   For example, North Korea is in need of medical aid, as antibiotics and other basic medications are lacking and surgery is performed without any anesthesia.   Humanitarian intervention in North Korea is being hindered by political disputes over North Korea's missile program.

Most countries claim that domestic problems are their own and should not be interfered with by another country or organization.  Who determines whether or not humanitarian intervention is justified?  For example, the United Nations took action in Somalia in late 1991 to help relieve people suffering from severe famine.  What about in situations where people are being systematically killed, as was the case with the recent ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars by the Bosian Serbs under President Milosovich?   NATO forces and the United Nations decided to intervene in the conflict.   However, the United Nations did not take action in Rwanda in 1995 when a civil war broke out between the Hutus and the Tutsis, where many Tutsis were subjected to torture and ethnic cleansing.  Are there cultural reasons and discrepancies regarding who received aid and where intervention happens?  Is it possible that military intervention can achieve humanitarian goals?  All of these questions present problems when trying to determine where humanitarian aid and intervention is needed.   Additionally, what qualifies as humanitarian aid and to what degree intervention should occur needs to be explored.

Recently, the UN held its Millennium Summit in New York to address its role as peacekeeper, particularly in Africa where conflicts in several countries, including Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have seriously strained UN resources.  Many internal conflicts, such as these in Africa, require more intervention and support than the UN can afford.  While many EDCs would like to see UN humanitarian intervention be more effective and successful, these same countries are reluctant to commit funds or forces to these operations.  During the Millennium Summit meetings, several UN Security Council members asserted that the only way to reduce the probability of war is to address the issues of deprivation.  Indeed tackling issues of health, human rights, the environment, and sustainable development is the most effective means for preventing conflict, particularly the type of conflict which has made UN peacekeeping efforts difficult, if not impossible.  

Many countries disagree about how to define human rights. How should it be defined? What aspects should be included? What action should be taken to protect these rights? Some argue that human rights are based on inherent moral principles, while others argue that they are culturally grounded. Even when some ground is established as a basis to address human rights, problems of implementation remain. Not all countries have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Of those that have signed, there are still disagreements about aspects of human rights.

Situations occur almost daily where humanitarian aid and intervention are needed. In part, this is due to the economic disparities between EDCs and LDCs. Arguably, as many people in LDCs live below the poverty line, much help is needed. However, it is often only the extreme cases of famine or genocide that receive attention. Even in such situations, much time lapses before efforts are organized.

International Trade and Economics:
Sustainable Development & International Economic Relations

As the global system becomes more complex as countries become progressively more intertwined and interdependent, sustainable development and international economic relations issues move into the forefront. Sustainable development is a concept that asserts that economic, social, and political development are necessary, but not to the neglect of the environment.  This is a notion that applies to both the further progression of EDCs as well as growth and development of LDCs.  International economic relations are increasingly shaped by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).  These have long provided the framework in which international interests in trade is managed and disputes are settled. Many bilateral and multilateral agreements exist outside the WTO framework, but the WTO provides an overarching set of rules and norms that help regularize international economic affairs.

GATT was focused on reducing the complexity of bilateral trade agreements and preferences to increase trade benefits to all nations. GATT was maintained through a series of conferences, which had been used to evaluate and amend international trade regulations. In an agreement implemented in 1995, GATT established its successor, the WTO, which has been given more power to resolve trade disputes.  Since its formation, many cases have gone before the WTO.  For example, a dispute over banana exports between the US and the EU went to the WTO for resolution.  Similarly, a case between Brazil and Canada who are in disagreement over aircrafts subsidies is now also under WTO consideration.  

At times, countries disagree with and question WTO trade policy.  In some cases, however, WTO policy is not only unfavorable, but also contradicts the domestic laws of a country, forcing it to either go against its own policy or that of the WTO.  Conversely, countries have willingly made policy changes recommended by the WTO.  For instance, India recently agreed to remove trade barriers on over 700 products in an attempt to liberalize, or open,  its economy to the rest of the world.  

Many argue that WTO policies favor EDCs.  LDCs have made efforts through their UNCTAD membership to improve their own improve economic development and stability.  However, UNCTAD is no match for the WTO.  Additionally, several EDCs further secure their interests through membership in the Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD) and the Group of 7 (G-7).  

Relations between the EDCs and LDCs became strained during the 1999 Seattle Round of the WTO meetings.  Protestors from EDCs demanded that their representatives limit job loss, human rights---particularly child labor---violations, and environmental hazards.  LDC workers in most cases are paid far less than EDC workers.  Additionally, these workers are receiving few or no benefits, while at the same time working in poor conditions.  LDCs have less stringent environmental standards, inviting in multinational corporations (MNCs).  There was marked division within the EDCs as some interest groups like labor unions, humanitarian organizations, and environment groups sought to stop any further increase in trade relations with LDCs until they improve standards.  On the other side, however, particularly MNCs fought to increase trade relations as they benefit from less stringent standards.

Some policy makers argue that it is not in the interest in EDCs to aid LDCs.  They argue that LDCs must make the progress on their own, otherwise the EDCs are just adding to the population growth, increasing health problems, and environmental degradation while neglecting their own growth and development.  For instance, most EDCs contribute less than 1% of their entire GDP toward foreign aid, at least indirectly supporting this notion.

Some policy makers argue that the growth and development of LDCs is in the interest of the EDCs.  On one hand, there is a purely self-interested reason for EDCs to promote sustainable development in LDCs---because the EDCs will reap the benefits of having access to more markets where they can sell their goods.  On the other hand, there is also a humanitarian argument for LDC development in that with development, fewer people will suffer from the atrocities of poverty.  

Whether and how to help stimulate sustainable development in LDCs still remains problematic, especially as there are disagreements about the role and the motivation behind EDC actions.

World Health:
Global Population 

Another prominent health concern is global population. There is no clear consensus on the global impact of expanding populations. Population growth is seen by many as a threat to the world's resources and environment and to the quality of human life. On the other hand, many developing countries have seen population control efforts as an effort to reduce the population of specific ethnic groups.

Global population is a transnational issue that affects everyone.  Fast rates of population growth in LDCs pose a problem because the planet cannot continue to sustain the world’s population if growth rates increase at the current rate. Improved access to health care as well as economic concerns and cultural differences make population control a challenge in developing countries. While population growth in EDCs is minimal, these populations are more demanding of the earth’s resources.

The population growth rate in developed countries is significantly lower than that of most developing nations, but the populations of industrialized nations put more pressure on the earth's carrying capacity than equal numbers of people in less developed nations. Each individual in an industrialized society consumes more calories, produces more solid waste, uses more fossil fuels, and produces more emissions than his or her counterpart in a poorer country. In these terms, population growth in industrial nations has been seen as the greater threat to global survival than LDC population growth. Others argue, however, that the industrialized nations are better able to provide a quality existence for a growing population. They argue that the greatest threat comes from unchecked population growth in regions that cannot provide basic nutrition, health care, shelter, or employment for their population.

Efforts to control population growth rates have been very controversial. Birth control can be considered an intrusion into the culture and often the religion of countries with high population growth rates. In addition, the issue of reproductive rights is often a rallying point for conservative religious and social groups worldwide. For example, the September 1994 UN Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt was dominated by controversy over abortion. The conference became mired in reproductive issues, with the Vatican and conservative Muslim groups vehemently opposing abortion as a legitimate form of population control.

Rapid population growth raises a number of concerns.  Most population growth occurs in LDCs, where people already struggle to meet their basic needs of food, clean water, adequate clothing, and proper shelter.  People in LDCs, especially children, suffer from malnutrition.  A diet without sufficient nutrients increases the risk of disease.  Improper diets and a lack of food lead to weakness and an inability to be productive in the economy.   Global population problems contribute to malnutrition as a country's population exceeds its available resources.