Reflection #9

To begin this reflection, I would like to say that not having a blog post this week was a Godsend. There were two fewer things to add to my checklist, and I could focus solely on my papers for other classes. While this was beneficial, I felt like I was thrown off by the lack of blog posts. Usually, I keep a pretty tight schedule when it comes to completing our blogging requirements every week, and not having to complete them created a lot of confusion on my part. 

Simulation Week, on the other hand, was quite the event. Tensions ran high and everyone came prepared to destroy the other teams' arguments. Day 1 of the simulation was more civil because we only presented, and most of us, except for maybe 1 or 2 teams, didn't leave enough time to ask the hard-hitting questions. Every presentation was well put together, but my teammates and I made it a point to note down controversial parts of opponents' proposals or their "ethical" process for decisionmaking. We wanted to have sharp points against their main arguments such as, "How ethical can Lockheed Martin be after dropping bombs on a busload full of children?" or "How will Shell prevent any further degradation of the Nigerian environment?". 

Adding the extra day for rebuttals was crucial as I was able to prepare more for my speech. I didn't necessarily know how to prepare since we had covered possible oppositional questions in our first presentation. We addressed the costs of these programs and why we believed US military intervention would have been more detrimental to the Nigerian people. After discussing the issue further with my teammates, we decided to focus on the humanitarian aid part of our proposal and partnering with other NGOs such as the Human Rights Watch and the Initiative for Global Development. Tensions ran extremely high on this second day of the simulation as the room primarily split into two camps of thought. One side was compromised of the realist groups whose primary purpose revolved around the military intervention. Triple Canopy, Lockheed Martin, and Shell formed a partnership based security purposes. While we, the IRC, were against their mode of intervention, there were some points with which I agreed. Obviously, I couldn't argue for the use of military intervention, being an NGO, I had to place myself in the shoes of a liberal humanitarian aid organization. I tend to lean towards realist arguments during our discussions, so having to think within a liberal mindset was quite hard. Being able to argue both sides of an issue is essential and I think this simulation was a good example of that. We were placed into groups that challenged us and made us think more critically about the methods of intervention. I know I've learned greatly from those two days of class and I would really love to complete another during the remainder of our time this semester, if at all possible. The simulation really broke up the normal pattern of reading and then discussion and I really needed that break at this point of the academic season.