Once we have defined the scope of the game, the next step was to narrow the focus a little to determine what it is that the actors were seeking to achieve and to set out the resources they had at their disposal at the start of the game. We felt that a good opening game would be one that defined a baseline scenario for 2050. This would be a continuation of current trends resulting from current policy. The players could change the direction of policy from within the game, but we felt it would be interesting to play the game as a continuation scenario.
In subsequent games, we might like to explore a transformational scenario, a new equilibrium scenario, or even a collapse scenario. We would do this by modifying the objectives of the players and the resources they have at their disposal at the start of the game. However, this was a continuation scenario, and that determined the player's objectives.
We felt that Russia would be the key to the game, so we cast the most experienced player in this role and constrained them with a declining population and western imposed capital controls. We took the objectives for Russia to be the commercial exploitation of the mineral and hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic, along with the opening of the Northern Sea Route, and the commercial exploitation of the Arctic based fisheries.
Defining this role for Russia naturally led to the objectives for China and Japan. The objective for China would be the successful opening of the Polar Silk Road by 2050, along with the creation of Russia as a tributary client. The objective for Japan was a little more commercial - to have access to the Northern Sea Route and to enjoy the benefits of the Arctic fisheries. We hoped to spice things up a little by asking Japan to pursue it's claims to the Kurile Islands.
Weighed against the Asian interests are the interests of the NATO states. Although we were to focus on the Arctic Council, we added a little granularity of a loosening NATO as well. We saw Canada as being the lead NATO state in the Arctic by virtue of the extent of it's Arctic coastline. From within our reference frame, we thought that Canada would seek to exercise a degree of territoriality over the Arctic, but from within the framework of the Arctic Council.
We saw the US as taking a diametrically opposed view to Canada. The position of the US was to maintain the Arctic as a global commons to be enjoyed by all, but to make ready for the exploitation of the hydrocarbon deposits within the Arctic. The position of the European Commission was in sympathy with the Canadian desire to maintain the institutional framework of the Arctic Council, but also in sympathy with the American desire to regard the Arctic as a global commons. We hardwired into the game a fragmented and fractious NATO infrastructure.
The resources commanded by the players at the start of the game in 2020 were very limited. The Polar Ice Cap effectively blocks all navigation across the Arctic Ocean. Russia has port facilities at Murmansk. The US and Canada share a transportation highway. And that's it. We found this to be a good opening point because much if the key infrastructure underpinning the development of the Arctic region has yet to be laid. In that regard, the players had a blank canvass onto which they could project the necessary developments.
At this point, the game was defined and we were ready for battle to commence.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment