As part of the Public Policy School’s International Security
class, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a mock arms control
negotiation with a delegation of Russian students visiting the United States. The
goal of the exercise was to have a U.S. delegation and a Russian delegation of
students come to some kind of agreement about how to take steps to lower the
nuclear arsenals of both countries.
I have worked in groups before, but, in this case, was
struck by how infinitely more complex the task becomes when you have to not
only deal with dynamics within your own group, but also dynamics between two
groups from different countries. Words were chosen extremely carefully. Sentences
were stopped midway, as people would self-censor their ideas. One could chalk up
this dynamic to the normal cultural barriers that exist between citizens from
different cultures or awkwardness that exists when strangers are thrown into a
room together and forced to work together, but, in this situation, there seemed
to be a different dynamic at play, which was the perception that we were also representing
the broader interests of our countries.
If one was to put 15 competent people with background
knowledge of an issue in a room and asked them to come up with a solution to a
problem, it might be difficult, but they would likely be able to come up with a
proposal. However, because there were intra- and inter- group dynamics, as well
as broader political and cultural pressures, the task was nearly impossible.
Further complicating this effort was the issue we were
seeking to address. The United States and Russia each posses thousands upon
thousands of nuclear weapons, more than 90% of those that exist in the world. Part of the original reason both Russia
and the United States developed their arsenals was because of deep seeded
distrust and hostility between the two nations. Although the Cold War is over
and most of the people who participated in the class exercise were not adults
during the Cold War, there was a palpable tension in the room. Coming to
agreement on this goal, not to mention implementing it, would require an
enormous amount trust, transparency, and effective communication between the
parties. These elements were barely a part of our mock negotiation. I can only
imagine how difficult an actual negotiation must be.
For anyone interested in participating in this exercise, it is part of the International Security course taught in the Spring, not in the Fall.
