In Ritsumeikan University, the practice of GLOBAL GAMING has been repeatedly conducted. Each practice posed several technical and operational questions to be improved, and actually the team of planners has continued its efforts to improve and advance the content of GLOBAL GAMING operational continuously.
This section aims to introduce some of these questions, especially drawn form the recent practice held in December 22, 1996 at Ritsumeikan University. This particular gaming, attended by the total of 150 approximately, focused on the future scenario of the Sea of Japan Rim and how to deal with the hostage incident at Embassy of Japan in Peru. Lessons learned from this practice include how to compile the grand design of gaming in accordance with the real international relations, and how to set up the actors within the grand design framework.
According to our most update version of GLOBAL GAMING planner's manual, the team of planners must compile the grand design of gaming in the first place. This includes the issues to be focused and the regions to be featured, too. Once the grand design is formulated, then the list of actors to be set up is compiled. In fact, the GLOBAL GAMING held in December 1996 followed this procedure for preparation, and the Peru Incident was selected as one of the issues to be focused.
However, it was just two days before the day of practicing GLOBAL GAMING that this so-called Peru Incident happened in the real world. Then, the team of planner reacted by including this suddenly occurred incident into the issues to be focused, in consideration that this could be major focus of Japan's diplomatic agenda for the next several days or weeks.
Normally, a practice of GLOBAL GAMING will start based on the situation of real international relations of the day of its practice. In other words, the participants will start playing GLOBAL GAMING after reading newspapers and watching TV news programs of the day of its practice. Therefore, it could well be that the decision by the team of planners to include the Peru Incident into the issues to be focused was a timely and appropriate one, because Japan-Peru relations along this incident became the hottest issue of Japan's diplomatic agenda for the next several months.
However, the list of actors to be set up was compiled long before this quick action by the team of planners, and all participants were already assigned with each role. Therefore, the participants had been promoting intensive preparatory studies on their assigned roles. In this situation, it was difficult to set up new roles in response to introducing a new issue to be focused, and even, it was too late to nominate and recruit new participants.
In addition, during the course of real negotiations in Peru going on, there emerged number of individuals or informal sectors who played distinct roles toward its solution, including the diplomats from government concerned, and the representatives of religious groups and social movements. And these "new" actors could not be included into the list of roles to be set up in this GLOBAL GAMING, because the list of roles itself was already formulated sometime in November 1996.
Related to this example
To what extend should we consider of the situation of real international relations when we compile the grand design of gaming? In order words, do we need to have a kind of careful "prediction" of the future world even for designing a game itself perfectly.
Or, can we think of a possibility of introducing a "more flexible" method of compiling a grand design of gaming, especially in setting up the list of actors? In order words, do we need to keep a certain number of NGO actors "unnamed", and prepare them as a kind of "reserved actors" which can deal with any situation perhaps occurring in the course of gaming?
It should be noted that NGO actors in GLOBAL GAMING include distinct individuals, universities, institutes, think-tanks and local governments. In order words, the category of NGOs here contains all actors except the governmental actors (or state actors) including international organizations, and Multi-National Corporation actor.
Regarding the alternative #1, it seems that, if GLOBAL GAMING is conducted under a "perfect" grand design based on well-formulated "prediction" prepared by a particular group of modeling or computer experts, this GLOBAL GAMING may become just a repeat of prediction or "belief" shared by this group of experts.
Regarding the alternative #2, it seems more preferred and suitable to the nature of GLOBAL GAMING, that is to create an future scenario and construct a process based on a particular conditionality. In order to do so, the list of actors to be set up in GLOBAL GAMING should also include the group of actors which can deal with any emerging situation. In the real world as well as in GLOBAL GAMING, the group of NGO actors in general can act more flexible than the group of state actors, systematically, institutionally and legally.
On December 21, 1996, GLOBAL GAMING was practiced only two days after the occurrence of the hostage incident in Peru. The President of Peru (Central Decision Maker : CDM) and the guerrilla group called MRTA (as Aspirant Decision Maker : ADM) in relation with the incident were created for the gaming, but only with a few information about their own role available. None of other actors related this incident was set up. In this section, we will observe the process of activities by the two actors chronologically.
The President of Peru demanded to release all hostages and gave a warning not to harm them. The President turned down all MRTA's claims.
|Cuba CDM||Peru CDM||Cuba is prepared to meditate between the Peru Government and MRTA|
|USA CDM||Peru CDM||The USA demands that the Peru Government must take strong action against MRTA|
|Cuba CDM||MRTA||Cuba grants MRTA's request to seek refuge in Cuba.|
|Mexico CDM||Peru CDM||Don't compromise with MRTA. We cannot allow any acts of terrorism in Latin America.|
|Canada CDM||Peru CDM||Measures dispatch the special corps are now under review in government circles.|
|Japan EDMx||Peru CDM||Peru must achieve it by peaceful measures.|
|Peru CDM||USA CDM||Peru don't make an easy compromise with MRTA.|
|Peru CDM||Cuba CDM||Peru dose not accept the members' release from prison. However we won't resort to force. Keep in contact with MRTA.|
|Cuba CDM||USA CDM||It's dangerous to make a hasty decision about this matter.|
|Cuba CDM||USA CDM||Cuba criticize the USA Government for the hard line on the subject of MRTA. The USA must make efforts to negotiate a settlement.|
Peru CDM and Japan CDM agreed
MRTA demanded to release all MRTA members from prison. The President didn't accept it.
|Cuba CDM||Japan CDM||Cuba is prepared to intermediate between the Peru Government should make approaches to the Peru Government to release some members of MRTA from prison.|
|Peru CDM||Canada CDM||Peru requests Canada to keep in contact with MRTA.|
|Peru CDM||USA CDM||The Peru Government will use the armed force if the MRTA kill any hostage.|
|Cuba CDM||Canada CDM||Canada should criticize the acts of USA for humanitarian reasons.|
|Peru CDM||Mexico CDM||Peru dose not compromise with MRTA.|
|Cuba CDM||MRTA||Don't be too violent.|
Peru CDM and Japan EDMx
Peru demanded the permission to rush the embassy if the hostage is killed. Japan accepted it.
Peru Government proposed a new solution.
However the MRTA insisted on the need for the members' release. The negotiation was suspended.
|Cuba CDM||MRTA||MRTA should change your opinions.|
|Japan EDMx||Peru CDM||The Japanese Government accepts the emergency measures.|
|MRTA||Cuba CDM||MRTA doesn't stick to our opinion about all members' release.|
Peru CDM and USA CDM
The USA requested not to release the top leader of MRTA. Peru accepted it.
The MRTA accepted the government's suggestion. However the MRTA demanded to call a press conference. The Government accepted it but to hold a press conference outside Peru.
As was mentioned above in GLOBAL GAMING, the Peru actors settled to release all hostages and to flee abroad through an extended negotiations. In the real world, as result of the Government of Peru's using its military force, this incident was concluded, but one hostages, two members of the special corps and all guerrillas were killed.
There ware several reasons for the difference between what happened in the game and what happened in the real world.
First, the headquarters of the military of Peru was not set up in the original list of actors, therefore it was impossible to simulate the political pressure from the military, which
Secondly, the intermediators such as the religious group or the International Red Cross were not set up in the original list of actors, therefore it was impossible to simulate the real situation where the government did not talk and negotiate with the guerrilla group but through these intermediators.
In order to overtone these problems, what we would learn from this case is that, more the informal decision-makers should be set up in GLOBAL GAMING, as there are many of them operating in the real international relations.