Home

Written by Ciara Perez

March 5, 2023

Last weekend, Patterson School students participated in the annual spring crisis simulation. This simulation differs from the fall simulation because it’s entirely designed by a Patterson alumnus. This year, the simulation revolved around the tensions between China, Taiwan, the United States, and Japan over a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. With the help of Patterson faculty mentors, University of Kentucky journalism students, and two alumni volunteers, the simulation was brought to life. Students were divided into four teams: the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (Taiwan), Japan, and the United States. Each team was provided with the background of events leading up to the crisis as well as a set of instructions outlining the country specific objectives they were expected to meet by the conclusion of the simulation.

The situation at the start of the crisis was that the PRC had conducted a week-long military drill around Taiwan and its territorial waters, however, 80% of Chinese vessels remained in place at the conclusion of the drill. The influx of Chinese vessels in the region sent Taiwan into a state of emergency. Three Taiwanese islands, Kinmen, Matsu, and Wuciou had also been surrounded, causing a disruption to international shipping lanes, and significantly reducing trade. Additionally, the PRC was regularly crossing into Taiwan’s territorial waters and Air Identification Zone. This sequence of events had neighboring Japan and ally United States on high. In response, Japan chose to host a high-level delegate meeting between itself, the PRC, Taiwan, and the United States. With those facts in mind and the individual objectives of each team, students engaged in negotiations to resolve the brewing crisis.

Throughout the crisis, teams arranged negotiation sessions to discuss formal arrangements which would advance their country’s interests. Approaching each session, students were expected to understand the real-world relationship between the countries in play and act accordingly, and to use knowledge of existing agreements to foster and advocate for new ones. For example, one objective of the United States was to gain increased access to its military bases in Japan. Since Japan is an ally of the United States, this was an easy task because it was also in the security interests of Japan, should the PRC escalate things closer to their borders. Throughout the simulation, there were several arms sales agreements between the United States, Japan, and Taiwan to aid Taiwan in its self-defense measures. Many United States plays during the crisis involved moving its military to demonstrate strength and its determination to defend Taiwan. And lastly, there were several bilateral negotiations between the PRC and the three other delegations to attempt a tit-for-tat strategy so the PRC would agree to move its fleet back to the Chinese mainland. Between negotiation sessions, delegations engaged in a Twitter war, held press conferences and released statements, and conducted intelligence sharing. On top of all that, SIM Control (simulation leadership) sporadically sent out intelligence updates to each team that sometimes required swift action be taken.

By the end of the first day, no team had succeeded in deescalating the situation and getting the PRC to back down. Instead, the day ended with the PRC having completely blockaded the three Taiwanese islands off the Chinese mainland, causing an immediate humanitarian crisis. With citizens of all nationalities living on the islands with no access to food or medications, Japan was quick to sign an agreement with the PRC to provide humanitarian aid. The second day of the crisis, the United States followed suit in sending aid. However, the humanitarian crisis was never resolved because all attempts to negotiate with the PRC proved futile as the delegation refused to back down without the United States cooperating with unreasonable requests. One such request involved the United States fully withdrawing its Seventh Fleet from the opening of the Taiwan Strait and returning it to the base in Japan, and in return the PRC agreed that it would remove some of its ships from the surrounding area. The United States didn’t find that to be an adequate trade, as it did not uphold the United States redline to protect Taiwan, and therefore the negotiations stalled.

In sum, the crisis simulation created an environment in which students took on leadership roles, built strategic-thinking skills, and learned the art of speaking diplomatically and ambiguously. It also provided students the opportunity to better learn and understand the relations within the region, as each team was expected to encompass the mannerisms of a real delegation from their assigned country. Though the crisis did not result in an immediate solution, the teams managed to avoid open war with the PRC which meant the simulation was a success.

This weekend, a group of Patterson students travelled to Washington, D.C. to attend the Meridian Summit at the United States Institute of Peace.  This was the first in-person Summit since COVID-19, and this year, the focus was primarily on issues facing cyberspace.  The Summit was split into two locations: the Main Stage and the Innovation Stage.  The Main Stage primarily focused on what was called “The Global Divide,” focusing on this incredible divide between those who have access to the internet and those who do not.  The Innovation Stage, however, focused on a variety of issues including inclusivity in cyber careers as well as cybersecurity. 

The Summit began with a presentation that illustrated this global divide—walking through more developed nations as well as LDCs (“least developed countries”).  The numbers emphasized that while a country may be “developed,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that every citizen has access to the internet, whether through a phone or through another device.  What shouldn’t be surprising, however, is how large that number became in LDCs, and this divide is further deepened when other factors like age, gender, and ethnicity are considered.  For example, in some parts of the world, women have even less of a chance to gain access to the internet. 

To continue with this idea of The Global Divide, a panel convened to discuss what happens when the nations finally obtain access to the internet.  What stood out to me the most was this idea that while access to the internet is important, it is cybersecurity that is the key issue that shouldn’t be dismissed.  If one has access to the internet but fails to have the proper defense against cyber attacks, then would that person be more vulnerable than if he never received that access?  The answer to that question is quite simple: he would be.  Therefore, the panel emphasized this “package deal” that would need to be presented to those without internet access.  And finally, the panel addressed another key component to closing this global divide: affordability.  For someone in a LDC, affordability could be the one thing that prevents them from gaining access to the internet.  Logically, if one must choose between food for their family and paying for internet access, one would always choose to provide for their family. 

Another interesting panel included a discussion on how governments and the private sector can work together to improve what is called “tech diplomacy.”  Tech diplomacy is essentially collective action between government and the private sector to maintain regulations and innovation in our evolving world.  Tech diplomacy not only involves expanding access to LDCs, but it also includes keeping the internet “open and free”—even in authoritarian regimes.  Moreover, we cannot discuss keeping the internet “open and free” to all people without mentioning the private sector’s responsibility in helping keep the internet affordable for all people—regardless of where they live.  The panel concluded by emphasizing the importance of tech diplomacy being at the forefront of modern diplomatic policy.

That night, we realized a few students in our group had never visited D.C. before, so we met up with a few Patterson alum and took the metro out to the National Mall to see the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial.  As we read Lincoln’s words along the walls, we were reminded of our patriotism and dedication to continue moving toward a more inclusive and equal society.

On October 7^th & 8^th, the Patterson School and the Army War College participated in the annual negotiation exercise.  This exercise consisted of several countries working together to overcome issues facing the South China Sea.  The countries that participated in this simulation were the United States, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Japan. 

The simulation began as confronting Chinese aggression in the region.  China, contrary to international law, claimed the Paracel and Spratly Islands as their own, which caused tensions among its neighbors.  China’s neighbors heavily relied upon countries residing outside the South China Sea—the United States and Japan—to counter China’s aggression, and as a result, the United States was able to draft a massive multilateral agreement on principle that included intertwining of the economies, planning of joint military exercises, establishing an exclusion zone around the contested islands, and affirming that any and all contested claims to the islands would be settled within the ASEAN coalition at a future date.

The United States realized its role was to simply push back against China’s agenda in the South China Sea while enforcing international law and the freedom of navigation, and the United States utilized its relationship with the smaller Asian nations to do so.  As a result, the United States was able to not only address each nation’s concerns relating to China, but the United States was also able to establish further economic and military ties that resulted in less reliance on the Chinese. 

Of course, the Chinese delegation did everything it could to prevent this multilateral agreement from forming, and perhaps their most clever strategy was setting up meetings with all delegations with the intention of not following through on any of the planned outcomes arising from these meetings.  For example, in its second meeting with the United States, China proposed a “green deal,” which included details on tackling climate change and global warming.  When asked how China could propose such an agreement given China was the number one polluter in the world, China could not provide an adequate response—indicating China’s intention of simply stalling the multilateral agreement.  The United States used this discovery against the Chinese delegation and pressed into the multilateral agreement by informing the smaller Asian nations of China’s true intentions: to prevent progress from taking place at this Summit and continue its aggression in the South China Sea.  Ultimately, the Chinese delegation’s tactic failed as the United States was able to secure the multilateral agreement within the last hour of the simulation.  Once all nations involved signed the agreement, the United States had achieved its overall goal: to push China back from its illegal claims and unfounded aggression. 

When the United States finally personally presented this multilateral agreement to China, the two Heads of Delegation met one-on-one in the presence of three mentors.  The United States intended for the meeting to be short—simply layout the foundations of the four-part agreement and to inform China that the United States would working with the other Asian nations to counter China’s objectives.  However, the United States and China quickly found themselves in a shouting match that resulted in the Head of the United States’ delegation enforcing his position by shoving his finger into the Head of the Chinese delegation’s shoulder.  As he did so, the Head of the United States’ delegation stated that this was the future China should have foreseen and that China needed to face the consequences of its actions.  Shortly after the encounter, the Head of the Chinese delegation walked through the halls, shouting that the United States had assaulted the Chinese delegation.  The Head of the Chinese delegation filed a complaint to the United Nations, and the United Nations Special Representative met individually with both Heads as part of his investigation into the incident.  However, with these meetings falling so close to the end of the simulation, the UN Special Representative did not formally reprimand the quarreling Heads.

The simulation officially ended when the Heads of each delegation gave their closing remarks.  Because every country apart from China had agreed to the multilateral agreement on principle, their closing remarks were quite similar and spoke of immense cooperation with the United States and Japan.  China, however, did not echo that sentiment.  The Head of the Chinese delegation, in a homemade sling to emphasize the alleged assault, gave his closing remarks, and his remarks reflected a sense of betrayal from its neighbors as well as open hostility to the United States.  Despite China’s attempt to gain favor from its neighbors, the United States and other Asian nations enforced international law and illustrated a united front against China and its aggression in the region.

In essence, the goal of the simulation was to resolve the dispute diplomatically, and while tensions rose over the two days, students were able to work together to form firm, yet reasonable, solutions facing the South China Sea.