At the conclusion of each game, it is worth taking time to assess how well each player managed to achieve the objectives of their actor. As we have said previously, each player was given three objectives for their actor to achieve by the conclusion of Turn 6. It is always a salutary lesson to compare how well the players feel they performed against how well the umpires feel that the objectives had been achieved. We come into this exercise expecting a degree of overlap and a degree of mismatch. Where the mismatch is pronounced, we should go on to flag that divergence for further review and study.
In The Unfrozen North, six players each had three objectives. Of the eighteen total objectives, ten of those saw the players and umpires in agreement, with the remaining eight marking disagreement between the players and umpires. In one case - that of Canada - the umpires and the player concerned were in complete agreement. In four cases the players and umpires disagreed on a single objective. In one case the umpires and the player concerned disagreed over all three objectives.
The greatest disagreement concerned China. China was tasked with establishing the Polar Silk Road, to deepen ties with the tributary states, and to mark the centenary of the end of the 'Century of Humiliation'. The player felt that the Polar Silk Road had been established. The umpires largely agreed, but felt that more work ought to have been undertaken to develop the destination ports, in particular Baltimore and Felixstowe, for this to be fully achieved. The player felt rather lukewarm about the deepened ties with the tributary states. The umpires felt that this objective had largely been achieved concerning Russia. Finally, the player felt that the centenary had not been adequately celebrated, whilst the umpires felt that, with a military review on the North Pole, possibly enough had been done.
In the case of the United States, the player did not feel that the option to develop hydrocarbons within the region had been created, whilst the umpires thought that it possibly might have been with the development at Prudhoe Bay and Nome. In the case of the European Commission, the player had felt that they had not been successful in representing the interests of Greenland at the Arctic Council. The umpires felt that the player had possibly been successful. Russia felt that the Northern Sea Route was fully functioning, whereas the umpires felt that to be only possibly the case owing to the lack of development of the destination ports. The Japanese player felt that they had possibly maintained the territorial integrity of the Japanese state, but the umpires felt that the continued Russian occupation of the Kuril Islands called that into question.
Looking at the assessment overall, a number of review points seem to stand out:
1. What does it mean to have the Polar Silk Road completed? Does that necessarily involve the development of the destination ports? Or does it just mean the opening of the sea lanes?
2. What level of readiness is needed for port facilities to anticipate the passage of hydrocarbons? What pipelines and storage facilities need to be built? By whom, and at what cost?
3. How are the interests of non-members represented at the Arctic Council? Does the Arctic Council represent an ossified power structure? How might that change over time?
4. To what extent should legacy conflicts, such as over the Kuril Islands, influence future policy development? Are the current facts in the ground the basis for future conflict? Is this how we want the Arctic to be?
The game did not provide many answers to these questions. However, they do provide a useful starting point for future games and further research.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment