Spring Crisis Simulation 2024

Written by Jose  Miguel | April 1, 2024

On February 23rd -24th  Patterson School students participated in the annual spring crisis simulation. This simulation differs from the War College fall simulation because it’s entirely designed by a Patterson alumnus. This year, the simulation revolved around the Yemen civil war and its regional implications. The simulation was brought to life thanks to the help of Patterson faculty mentors, undergraduate students, and alumni volunteers. 

Students were divided into six teams: The United Nations (UN), Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Ansar Allah (Houthis), and PLC/STC. Each team was provided with a historical background of the situation and events that led up to the crisis. Furthermore, each delegation gets “privileged instructions” which set the country-specific objectives. Students will seek to meet these objectives by the conclusion of the simulation.

The crisis took the existence humanitarian crisis and the regional actors’ interest to start the simulation. The purpose of this simulation was not to end the civil war or even to finalize deals using the UN roadmaps. Rather each decided to send an “advance team” of negotiators to Muscat, Oman before more formal talks on the UN roadmap took place. Under this framework, students were expected to deal with the details of a peace process while navigating a volatile situation. Students were also expected to figure out what each party wanted in the negotiations and how to achieve compromise.

During the crisis, teams organized negotiation sessions to discuss formal arrangements seeking to advance their country’s interests. Approaching each session, students were expected to understand the real-world implications at play and act according to their guidelines. Their background knowledge served to guide strategic approaches to negotiate agreements and advocate for new ones. For example, the Saudi Arabia delegation engaged with the Houthis and PLC/STC to achieve their security goals as concerns for the oil infrastructure were present. This translated into the negotiation of a Public Salary payment plan that attempted to pay unpaid civil servants. This became a multilateral effort joined by AUE to secure financial backing. Unfortunately, miscommunication and back-channel meetings led to this deal being disintegrated. 

Throughout the simulation, there were several bilateral negotiations between delegations attempting to address economic and humanitarian concerns. The UN served as the mediator during the simulation attempting to foment conversations during the meeting blocks. Between negotiation sessions, delegations participated in a social media battle on Twitter, organized press conferences, issued statements, and shared intelligence. Additionally, the simulation leadership intermittently provided intelligence updates to each team and occasionally changed the dynamics to promote action.

By the end of the first day, tensions were high as delegations’ positions would not budge in negotiations. The day ended with the UN canceling an all-delegation meeting as Saudi Arabia was presenting a bilateral deal with the Houthis in which the UN was not consulted. Iran decided to boycott this meeting which was a common complaint the majority of delegations raised against them. An interesting development was the unification of the PLC/STC forming a united front in negotiations. One of the main focus was addressing the humanitarian crisis. The PLC/STC delegations started requesting urgent humanitarian aid packages to alleviate starvation and malnutrition. AUE, Saudi Arabia, and the UN started working to supply them. 

On the second day of the crisis, there was an assassination against the Houthi delegation. This prompted retaliatory attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea. This raised the tensions and distrust between delegations. The events stalled negotiations as there was no intelligence on what faction had ordered the violence or confidence anything could be accomplished. Negotiations resumed under economic parameters as the regional delegation recognized their economic interest were at risk. Different factions negotiated bilateral agreements with benefactors that aligned with their security and economic goals. The UN attempted to establish a peacekeeping mission to address security concerns from PLC/STC, but this ultimately failed per SIM control guidance. The side deals reinforced camps and regional ties which prevented further violence escalation.

The crisis simulation created an environment where students took on leadership roles, created strategies, practiced thinking skills, and learned how to act diplomatically. This experience provided students the opportunity to get hands-on training to understand the relation dynamics within the region.  Though no crisis was resolved, the teams managed to avoid escalations and start having crucial conversations about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. 

Special thanks to Kyle