Simulation Questions: Pol Pot
Simulation Questions
.
1. Define the overall problem(s)/issue(s) your specific role was seeking to negotiate in the simulation. Make sure to integrate concepts of international law when explaining your points.
The role I was playing in this simulation was Wai Cheng who is a Chinese diplomat. At the time of the simulation, China and Cambodia were close allies as both regimes were communist. Cheng is well acquainted with most of the Khmer Rouge, however, does not defend Pol Pot and his actions during the time of his reign. My overall goal is to ensure that the Khmer Rouge is not made as the scapegoat. Therefore the pressing issue I will seek to negotiate is accountability; who should be prosecuted and how? Cheng also believes that this is a matter …show more content…
for Cambodians to resolve and other nations should not get involved as Cambodia is a sovereign state. No other countries were involved but Cambodia commited war crimes and crimes against humanity, that is the reason for international law being involved (international humanitarian law does not truly apply as there were no wars or conflicts occuring) . Another goal is for Cambodia to hold an internal tribunal to put individuals on trial. This will save a substantial amount of time and money rather than proceeding at the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice. Criminals tried in these courts rarely receive charges and have high costs. The citizens of Cambodia should be in the jury although there should be a neutral party such as a UN representative supervising the trials to ensure legitimacy. Cheng might be slightly concerned with the refugee issue as some will come into China. Therefore I will hope that Cambodia will resolve their situation so refugees can return. I am not very concerned with elections as stated before that this is a subject for Cambodians to decide.
2. Identify the underlying needs or interests your group (negotiators or task force) considered when drafting the final proposal.
While negotiating our group did not get along or agree at first. Then one thing we all settled upon was that the current Cambodian government would apologize on behalf of the Khmer Rouge for cause a great deal of destruction. There is no doubt that this is a genocide, Cambodia carried out all the 8 stages of genocide. Creating a genocide is a enormous crime against international law and someone has to take responsibility. Most blame fell towards Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, therefore they will need to be charged and punished. Placing individuals on trial at a internal tribunal was determined and having a third party organization like the UN would supervise. For funds the current government would seize assets of members of the Khmer Rouge, collect tax from citizens and ask the UN or other international organizations for aid. They would be imprisoned if found guilty and rehabilitated. Some individuals demanded for a more severe punishment but that was refuted. A free and fair election for Cambodia was in the mind of everyone, how to achieve that was the issue. It was agreed that the UN would oversee the elections for 2 years seeing that there would be no bias. In addition, an election will be held every 4 years. As for the refugees, many want to settle them back into Cambodia but it will be difficult to identify who is Khmer Rouge. Sadly, we did not have enough time to discuss the refugee situation.
3. Identify the concepts of law that had impact on the negotiations and why? Ex.
Rule of law, war crimes, tribunals, refugees, sovereignty, human rights, equity, equality, power…
War crimes and crimes against humanity impacted negotiations because we had to figure out what to charge Pol Pot and members of the Khmer Rouge with. Also we read the different articles and applied them accordingly. We did add which human rights were violated to our negotiations. Tribunals were discussed when the group were deciding if the offenders should be tried in an internal or external tribunal. As stated above, we chose to have internal tribunals as it will be less costly and time consuming. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge have the right to trial even after causing so much suffering because everyone is equal under the law (rule of law). Some argued that they deserve to be executed but that is highly immoral. Refugees were one of the main topics to consult because many Cambodians were scattered outside the borders, waiting to return home. We agreed they should have the ability to come back but some feared that Khmer Rouge were hidden amongst them. Discussions concerning equity and equality were talked about but it was mostly relating to how the regime tried to treat Cambodian citizens equally and how it resulted in failure. Khmer Rouge put those who were wealthier at the same level as poor farmers to have equality instead of helping farmers escape poverty.
4. Reflect on the process - what specifically did you do to prepare for your role?
How much did you participate in the initial discussion in your small groups?
How much did you participate in the large group discussion? Were your idea acknowledged and used? How much influence did your role have in the final negotiation process.
After I received my role as Wai Cheng, I tried to research her but there was no information.
Then I figured that she was a made up character so I researched about China and Cambodia’s relationship at the time. I found out that we were one of their only allies since we both were communist states. However, most information I needed was already in the booklet we received. In the initial discussion in small groups we mostly talked about the elections. It was not really my place to say anything except that it should be a fair election. When we were discussing who should be accountable, everyone was blaming the Khmer Rouge so I said that Pol Pot should take responsibility as well. During the large group negotiation I pushed for internal tribunals along with some others and the group decided that was the best option. Splitting off into smaller groups, we were focused on accountability. I got my textbook that listed all the war crimes and we wrote out which ones were violated. We also decided that Pol Pot was the first to be blamed along with the Khmer Rouge. For the funding the tribunals I suggested asking the UN and other international organizations for financial aid. As for the elections, the US wanted to monitor them but this will create a bias that will push for Western ideals, I disagreed and someone else mentioned to have a neutral party supervising. Someone from the refugee group asked me if China is willing to donate to the refugees, I agreed to provide a small amount of money so China does not have to take care of an abundance of refugees. Being a Chinese diplomat, I did not have a high amount of influence discussing a Cambodian issue, however, I always tried to get my points across. We used many of the my ideas I mentioned in the final
proposal.
5. What could you have improved upon? (How could you have been better prepared? Engage more in the group discussion etc.)
Something I could have improved upon was participating in more group discussions. Wai Cheng is not a very important role that will speak a lot but I wish I engaged in more than I did. Maybe it was because I felt China did not have a right in saying how certain things should be dealt with since Cambodia is a sovereign state. However, I tried to do my best and gave suggestions throughout the whole simulation. Perhaps, I could have researched more about China and Cambodia but I feel I had all the important information for the simulation so further research would be unnecessary.
6. What mark out of 10 (1 being low/10 being high) would you give yourself?
Please justify your answer.
I would give myself an 8 because I researched about my role and utilized her accordingly. I tried to participate as much as I could by suggesting ideas, stayed quiet and respectful when others were talking and always kept on task. However, I do regret not speaking up more often. I finished all of the questions and class work about the simulation. Also I believe I have learnt a lot during this simulation like how essential teamwork is to finish a task and how hard it is to satisfy everyone especially if their opinions are opposite to each other, for example, Ka (leader of Mothers of Justice) wanted members of the Khmer Rouge to be executed as justice for her family members that died during their reign but the Buddhist monk just wanted to forgive and forget. These two are very different in their wants. The more complex an issue the harder it was for everyone to agree but we made it work. Many had to compromise some of our values but it all functioned in the end.
.
1. Define the overall problem(s)/issue(s) your specific role was seeking to negotiate in the simulation. Make sure to integrate concepts of international law when explaining your points.
The role I was playing in this simulation was Wai Cheng who is a Chinese diplomat. At the time of the simulation, China and Cambodia were close allies as both regimes were communist. Cheng is well acquainted with most of the Khmer Rouge, however, does not defend Pol Pot and his actions during the time of his reign. My overall goal is to ensure that the Khmer Rouge is not made as the scapegoat. Therefore the pressing issue I will seek to negotiate is accountability; who should be prosecuted and how? Cheng also believes that this is a matter …show more content…
for Cambodians to resolve and other nations should not get involved as Cambodia is a sovereign state. No other countries were involved but Cambodia commited war crimes and crimes against humanity, that is the reason for international law being involved (international humanitarian law does not truly apply as there were no wars or conflicts occuring) . Another goal is for Cambodia to hold an internal tribunal to put individuals on trial. This will save a substantial amount of time and money rather than proceeding at the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice. Criminals tried in these courts rarely receive charges and have high costs. The citizens of Cambodia should be in the jury although there should be a neutral party such as a UN representative supervising the trials to ensure legitimacy. Cheng might be slightly concerned with the refugee issue as some will come into China. Therefore I will hope that Cambodia will resolve their situation so refugees can return. I am not very concerned with elections as stated before that this is a subject for Cambodians to decide.
2. Identify the underlying needs or interests your group (negotiators or task force) considered when drafting the final proposal.
While negotiating our group did not get along or agree at first. Then one thing we all settled upon was that the current Cambodian government would apologize on behalf of the Khmer Rouge for cause a great deal of destruction. There is no doubt that this is a genocide, Cambodia carried out all the 8 stages of genocide. Creating a genocide is a enormous crime against international law and someone has to take responsibility. Most blame fell towards Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, therefore they will need to be charged and punished. Placing individuals on trial at a internal tribunal was determined and having a third party organization like the UN would supervise. For funds the current government would seize assets of members of the Khmer Rouge, collect tax from citizens and ask the UN or other international organizations for aid. They would be imprisoned if found guilty and rehabilitated. Some individuals demanded for a more severe punishment but that was refuted. A free and fair election for Cambodia was in the mind of everyone, how to achieve that was the issue. It was agreed that the UN would oversee the elections for 2 years seeing that there would be no bias. In addition, an election will be held every 4 years. As for the refugees, many want to settle them back into Cambodia but it will be difficult to identify who is Khmer Rouge. Sadly, we did not have enough time to discuss the refugee situation.
3. Identify the concepts of law that had impact on the negotiations and why? Ex.
Rule of law, war crimes, tribunals, refugees, sovereignty, human rights, equity, equality, power…
War crimes and crimes against humanity impacted negotiations because we had to figure out what to charge Pol Pot and members of the Khmer Rouge with. Also we read the different articles and applied them accordingly. We did add which human rights were violated to our negotiations. Tribunals were discussed when the group were deciding if the offenders should be tried in an internal or external tribunal. As stated above, we chose to have internal tribunals as it will be less costly and time consuming. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge have the right to trial even after causing so much suffering because everyone is equal under the law (rule of law). Some argued that they deserve to be executed but that is highly immoral. Refugees were one of the main topics to consult because many Cambodians were scattered outside the borders, waiting to return home. We agreed they should have the ability to come back but some feared that Khmer Rouge were hidden amongst them. Discussions concerning equity and equality were talked about but it was mostly relating to how the regime tried to treat Cambodian citizens equally and how it resulted in failure. Khmer Rouge put those who were wealthier at the same level as poor farmers to have equality instead of helping farmers escape poverty.
4. Reflect on the process - what specifically did you do to prepare for your role?
How much did you participate in the initial discussion in your small groups?
How much did you participate in the large group discussion? Were your idea acknowledged and used? How much influence did your role have in the final negotiation process.
After I received my role as Wai Cheng, I tried to research her but there was no information.
Then I figured that she was a made up character so I researched about China and Cambodia’s relationship at the time. I found out that we were one of their only allies since we both were communist states. However, most information I needed was already in the booklet we received. In the initial discussion in small groups we mostly talked about the elections. It was not really my place to say anything except that it should be a fair election. When we were discussing who should be accountable, everyone was blaming the Khmer Rouge so I said that Pol Pot should take responsibility as well. During the large group negotiation I pushed for internal tribunals along with some others and the group decided that was the best option. Splitting off into smaller groups, we were focused on accountability. I got my textbook that listed all the war crimes and we wrote out which ones were violated. We also decided that Pol Pot was the first to be blamed along with the Khmer Rouge. For the funding the tribunals I suggested asking the UN and other international organizations for financial aid. As for the elections, the US wanted to monitor them but this will create a bias that will push for Western ideals, I disagreed and someone else mentioned to have a neutral party supervising. Someone from the refugee group asked me if China is willing to donate to the refugees, I agreed to provide a small amount of money so China does not have to take care of an abundance of refugees. Being a Chinese diplomat, I did not have a high amount of influence discussing a Cambodian issue, however, I always tried to get my points across. We used many of the my ideas I mentioned in the final
proposal.
5. What could you have improved upon? (How could you have been better prepared? Engage more in the group discussion etc.)
Something I could have improved upon was participating in more group discussions. Wai Cheng is not a very important role that will speak a lot but I wish I engaged in more than I did. Maybe it was because I felt China did not have a right in saying how certain things should be dealt with since Cambodia is a sovereign state. However, I tried to do my best and gave suggestions throughout the whole simulation. Perhaps, I could have researched more about China and Cambodia but I feel I had all the important information for the simulation so further research would be unnecessary.
6. What mark out of 10 (1 being low/10 being high) would you give yourself?
Please justify your answer.
I would give myself an 8 because I researched about my role and utilized her accordingly. I tried to participate as much as I could by suggesting ideas, stayed quiet and respectful when others were talking and always kept on task. However, I do regret not speaking up more often. I finished all of the questions and class work about the simulation. Also I believe I have learnt a lot during this simulation like how essential teamwork is to finish a task and how hard it is to satisfy everyone especially if their opinions are opposite to each other, for example, Ka (leader of Mothers of Justice) wanted members of the Khmer Rouge to be executed as justice for her family members that died during their reign but the Buddhist monk just wanted to forgive and forget. These two are very different in their wants. The more complex an issue the harder it was for everyone to agree but we made it work. Many had to compromise some of our values but it all functioned in the end.