Mr. John H. Southworth <south@hawaii.edu>
Dr. Parker Rossman <grossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu>
Mr. Donald B. Straus <straus@tmn.com>
Mr. Myron Nordquist <myron_nordquist@burns.senate.gov>
Ben I. Haraguchi <haragucb@arentfox.com>
Dear John:
==========
(1) Many thanks for your msgs (ATTACHMENT I and II).
I appreciate
your cordial invitation to your very interesting class.
Although
I cannot assure my time for the dialogue of your class, I will
try with
my best.
(2) Yesterday, I could visit your NiceNet successfully.
NiceNet
seems much *nicer* than Electronic Information Exchange System
(EIES)
of New Jersey Institute of Technology which you and I often used
almost
two decades ago.
Dear Parker:
============
(3) I read your Chapter 7
at <http://trib.net/~prossman/> with great
interest.
This was greatly improved from your original draft
(ATTACHMENT
III), though there are still typo's.
I suggest you to run it with spelling checker.
(4) I would strongly suggest
that you remove the following sentence as you
agreed
(ATTACHMENT IV).
The Japanese navy would be on its way to the mid-Pacific to stop
by force an American company that was mining on the sea floor. The
American navy was coming to stop the Japanese navy. Negotiators
online would need to resolve the crisis before the navies
confronted each another."
This subject may be related with the Law of the Sea"
project which you mentioned in 7.7. SHARED AND OPEN DATA
BASES" of your original draft (ATTACHMENT III) and in 7.6.
SHARED AND OPEN DATA" in your revised version.
Myron published a very academic book on this subject with a
fund from Ben's foundation.
Our discussions
were more serious and academic with renowned professors,
such as
Professor Lester C. Thurow of M.I.T., Provost William Nordhaus
of Yale,
Mr. Keith Johnson of Townsend and Greenspan Company on the US
side,
and Professor Onishi of Soka University, and President Shishido of
International
University in Japan side -- see ATTACHMENT V.
As the
organizer of the event, I have Fred Campano's scenario of the
simulation/gaming.
It was a serious US/Japan trade issue based on the
sudden
rise of crude oil price, which was a main newspaper subject at
that time.
You may replace it with;
One question raised by Donald Straus (President Emeritus of
American Arbitration Association) was the effect of raising
military expenditures in Japan to the American level while
lowering those of the U.S. to the present Japanese level.
Simulation ran overnight predicted that the balance of trade would
thus be even by the year 2000, with necessity of cooperation,
rather than competition, by both countries in the future (Nikkei
Shimbun, Aug. 8, 1986 in Japanese and with English translation).
This clearly indicated the cost and dilemma of American's nuclear
umbrella protecting Japan's economic prosperity, thus threatening
American's economic prosperity."
Teaching truth is the very basic principle of education.
Best, Tak
****************************************
ATTACHMENT I
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 10:11:21
-1000
From: John Southworth <south@hawaii.edu>
To: utsumi@friends-partners.org,
Utsumi@columbia.edu
CC: grossman@coin.org
Subject: Parker Rossman's "What's
Peace Gaming?" Electronic Field Trip
Tak,
It just occurred
to me that you might like to sit in on the events
of my University of Hawaii Lab
School Computer/Technology Class the
first couple of weeks of April.
I am using Nicenet
and ISDN for this venture that Parker has kindly
agreed to be a guest participant.
In order to plan for a relatively
short project we picked the Chapter
7 (Peace Gaming) from his on-line
draft of his book.
Each student
has been given a copy of Chapter 7 (with web listing of
the whole book if they are interested
in learning more) and assigned a
SUB SECTION. After
they read it, they are supposed to post a message
on the "What's Peace Gaming?" topic
Parker set up in my C/T class
Nicenet site.
Next Thursday
(April 13) we are planning a live teleconference by
ISDN (Honolulu, HI, to Mexico,MO)
for the students to meet and discuss
more with Parker.
Because of his
many references to you, we thought you might like to
signon our class site to observe
how we are using it to coordinate the
venture.
I don't remember
if you had a chance to participate in the Nicenet
site we set up for John Hibbs Global
Learn Day II. There we had each of
our Hawaii-Pacific participants
post a Power Point presentation that was
given and linked by phone teleconference.
In this case, our ISDN will
be separate from the Nicenet asynchronous
discussion.
Below I am attaching
the registration info (assuming you don't
current have a Nicenet USERNAME
and PASSWORD. If you do, then sign on
first and simply click JOIN A CLASS
and add the Class Key of SZ5582Z47.)
I think you might
find interesting the varieties of Electronic Field
Trip models we have used.
My usual objective is to have both
asynchronous Nicenet interaction
and a synchronous finale with ISDN,
Lumaphone, CU See Me, NetMeeting,
etc. Hope you can join us now or
later.
JHS
========================================
<<April 10, 2000>> Removed the rest by T. Utsumi,
========================================
****************************************
ATTACHMENT II
From: John Southworth <south@hawaii.edu>
To: "Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D." <utsumi@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Parker Rossman's "What's
Peace Gaming?" Electronic Field Trip
Date: Fri,
7 Apr 2000 20:32:59 -1000
Tak, Tried replying but not sure it got sent. Let me try again. JHS
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D. wrote:
> Dear John:
>
> (1) What do you expect from my
participation? -- i.e., what should I do?
Mainly observe as an example of
providing global awareness and
interaction for our isolated students
in Hawaii. The attempt is to expose
them to an acclaimed author and
have a chance to interact with him via
Nicenet and ISDN next week.
> (2) How long the time will last? -- and from when to when? >
The students got their assignments
(i.e. sub sections of Chapter 7) that
they are to read and post a summary
and reaction/questions/comments on
the "What's Peace Gaming?" CONFERENCING
topic on Nicenet. Next Thursday
is the essential finale when they
will have a chance through ISDN to
meet "face-to-face" synchronously
with Parker....followed by Nicenet
posted thank yous and impressions
and something they learned.
> (3) I haven't read Parker's Chapter 7. Where is it?
Aha...just register onto my Nicenet
class and look at the CONFERENCING
topic "What's Peace Gaming?" and
you will find Parker has introduced
himself and the book...complete
with URL link to the book.
Hope you can join us. Let
me know if you have any problems getting on.
JHS
****************************************
ATTACHMENT III
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:30:11
-0400 (EDT)
From: Tak Utsumi <utsumi@www.friends-partners.org>
To: Rossman Parker <grossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu>
cc: Utsumi Takeshi <utsumi@columbia.edu>
Subject: Your Chapter 7
Parker:
(1) Hope you had a wonderful trip
to Germany.
(2) Attached is your Chapter 7
with my comments/corrections in << >>.
(3) Sorry I don't have time to
read other chapters yet, though they
must be very interesting.
Hello to Jean.
Best, Tak
***********************************************************
Sept. 14, 1997
Chapter 7. PEACE GAMING ON THE SCALE OF PENTAGON WAR GAMES
"The directors of the `Second Generational
Multinational Forces'
(2GMO) project have already spoken
with U.S. Military Institutes
about adapting state-of the-art
war game strategies for
peacekeeping..." -Sarah
Lum.
New transdisciplinary forms of research
"are less institutionalized;
people come together in temporary
work teams and networks which
dissolve when a problem is solved
or redefined." --Gibbons 1994.
Now the
time has come to play a game, in a sense to brainstorm
about how to bring together new
powerful tools to resolve one of
humanity's most intractable problems:
war. We begin by recalling TV
Star Trek episodes in which war
is replaced with games, somewhat in
the spirit of the ancient story
of David and Goliath in which the
boy uses some new technology (his
sling shot) and skill to defeat
the giant.
Bremer
(1977) expressed the hope that his decision-making
computer model was "the first pier"
for a much needed bridge in the
field of international relations.
Many more piers have since been
constructed that increase the <<the>>
potential role of gaming and
simulations for resolving international
crises.
We began
here six chapters ago by asking how information-age
technology can help researchers
do more about human society's most
intractable problems. In five chapters
we examined powerful tools
now coming together: vast databases
of better organized knowledge,
technology such as the internet
to facilitate larger research,
enlarging experience with bringing
many minds together for more
creative thinking, tools like satellite
imaging which help empower
our research co-laboratories, and
computer simulations, modeling and
gaming to try out alternatives
without risk.
We suggest
that humanity now has the components for putting
together powerful planning/action
tools that could also be used to
empower alternatives to violence
in solving disputes. For war
prevention? Could there be more
comprehensive planning to transcend
the inadequate patchwork solutions
that are put together for each
new global crisis?
7.1. GAMING TO DISCOVER CONSEQUENCES
Awesome
complexity complicates human thought and action about
problems such as war and peace,
world hunger and global economic
development. Political leaders
have yet to learn--and organize--what
they need to know--and often miss
a whole range of possibilities.
Humans often fight because war
is simpler than solving massive human
problems and crises that cause
wars. It has been easier to kill
those who revolt because
they are hungry or suffer injustice than
it is to feed them or give them
justice.
Can we
play a peace game on the scale of Pentagon war games
without radar, battleships, or
tanks? Just with computer Web and
simulations? In 1997 the U.S, military
and allies conducted the
Joint Warrior Interpermeability
Demonstration. Thousands of military
and civilian personnel were involved
in testing informations systems
and satellite communications under
simulated warfare conditions.
Previous games like that had already
profoundly changed many ways of
doing things, and in 1997 that
project coordinated the messaging
systems of the USA. Canada, France,
Australia, New Zealand and
Spain. If the military were able
to do that with "commercial off-the-shelf
equipment" then civilians could
also play games on a
comparable scale.
In April,
1997, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP)
had a conference on `virtual diplomacy.'
It began with the
presupposition that new information
technologies are dramatically
changing how diplomats negotiate
to prevent war. Digital
communications "now link diverse
cultures, economies and create new
relationships that disregard conventional
<<conventional>>
boundaries, hierarchies, time zones.
and geopolitical boundaries."
(USIP 1996). This increases the
number of people who can cause
conflicts and the speed at which
events move from potential problem
to crisis. The Peace Institute
in 1994 had a conference on managing
chaos. It explored "the pivotal
role that "new `conflict managers'
can play in international conflict
resolution.
The next
step was to examine how global-scale information
tools might be used more effectively
in preventing crises through
conflict resolution, peacekeeping,
preventive diplomacy and
humanitarian assitance in turbulent
regions. A preparatory meeting
examined case studies of real instances,
including a series of
online dialogues between experts
in the United States and Japan on
Asian policy issues, an online
human rights database, a system to
monitor human rights treaties,
a computer-based negotiating training
model, software developed at M.I.T.
on patterns in regional
conflicts, and a data base on the
role of non-governmental
organizations in peacekeeping operations.
Now suppose
there could be (1) a large online coalition of
university departments and experts
in many fields, (2) supported by
massive data bases of all the information
needed for a war-preventing
simulation, (3) software to implement
the use of
collective intelligence for more
creative and imaginative thinking
about alteratives to war. (4) Could
we then--in a vast World Wide
Web co-laboratory--play a peace
game on the scale of Pentagon war
games? And (5) do so with computer
simulations and modeling so as to
play out all alternatives without
risk? (And at modest cost!)
7.2. PREVIOUS ONLINE PEACE-GAMING
Online
collaborative peace gaming <<(a term coined by Takeshi
Utsumi in 1971)>> began in 1972
when Professor Bob <<Noel>> of the
University of California, Santa
Barbara, planned to conduct a
political game over ARPANET (predecessor
of Internet). He assigned
other schools to play the roles
of diplomats of the Soviet Union,
etc. When he assigned California
students to play Japan <<,>>
Takeshi Utsumi <<protested
-- suggested>>: "No matter how much
Americans study Japan they cannot
understand the Japanese," he said.
And he proposed that University
of Tokyo students should play the
role of Japanese government. This
was done and then students in
London and Brussels were also enlisted.
The scenario
for this 1972 game assumed a border incident
between Iran and Iraq. During e-mail
negotiations the Japanese team
proposed that the United Nations
act to make the Maraca Strait an
international zone to secure Middle
East oil. Some political
scientists have since noted that
when Iran and Iraq did later
actually go to war, the plan proposed
by this peace game might have
been quite successful.
One of
the graduate students who participated in that 1972
game was Jonathan <<wilkenfeld>>
who later enlarged that first peace
gaming simulation into the International
Communications in
Negotiation with Simulation (ICONS)
project at the University of
Maryland. ICONS has been
described as a continuing `global
classroom project' in which students
play simulation/negotiation
games, acting out scenarios--in
part been prepared by the U.S. State
Department--in arms control, nuclear
proliferation, human rights
issues, etc. (<<wilkenfeld>>
1983.)
Prof.
Leopoldo Schapira of the University of Cordoba in
Argentina used e-mail for a similar
gaming simulation on drug
trafficking with colleagues around
Latin America. Since e-mail alone
was found to be inadequate for
such gaming, and since international
satellites were expensive, Utsumi
began experimenting with real-time
computer conferencing with slow-scan
TV over ordinary telephone
lines. Participating in some
of his experimental demonstrations
were Robert Muller, Honorary Chancellor
of the United Nations
University of Peace and Wassily
Leontief, Noble Laureate in
Economics.
In 1996
Utsumi was proposing a global peace game to train
negotiators for dealing with environmental/economic
conflicts.
(Utsumi 1996) He felt that the
game should be conducted by a global
university consortium and that
it should "promote peace through
joint research" and experimentation
to create a globally distributed
decision-support system for win/win
alternatives to conflict and
war. Its design phrase would use
computer networks for planning by
experts in various countries. At
the same time technologists would
review `state of the art' systems--hardware
and software--for a
project as large as a Pentagon
war game. Plans and technologies for
synergetic convergence are described
in Utsumi (1996)
7.3. A 1986 GAME
Utsumi's
first major experiment with global-scale peace gaming
was at the World Future Society's
1986 conference on complexity.
Discussions there about scientific
and technological explorations
were reporting new ways to deal
with complexities in many fields and
disciplines. There was, for example,
talk about how Mandlebrot and
others were implementing a new
understanding of chaos, the study of
turbulence and disorder in a whole
range of phenomena. There was
discussion about McCorduck's (The
Universal Machine), reports on how
computers were being used to empower
human intelligence and to
create fantastic tools for use
in global politics as well as in
medical research.
Suppose,
it was asked, society spent as much on peace as is
spent on defense and war. That
was seen to be a futile question
because more hundreds of billions
of dollars would not be available.
Now, however, Utsumi's panelists
suggested, there was a new
alternative: computer networking
and simulations which could explore
alternatives to war without much
cost and risk. Online negotiators
could: (1) create and use mutually
agreed-upon data bases; (2)
define and clarify areas of disagreement
and agreement; (3) simulate
alternative ways to resolve disagreements;
and (4) model historic
decisions and actions such as those
that have led to war and
tragedy.
Instead
of arguing theoretically with skeptics at the
complexity conference, Utsumi and
Parker Rossman conducted a
demonstration of a global-scale
peace game. It began with an online
experiment in using collective
intelligence--in advance of the
complexity conference--to develop
ideas, theory and procedures. The
resulting demonstration involved
connections between experts and
students at several universities.
American negotiators in the game--Provost
William Nordhaus of Yale and Dean
Lester Thurow of M.I.T--were electronically
interconnected with counterparts
at Japanese
universities for three days of
computer-assisted negotiations on a
crisis scenario.
The game
used the sophisticated FUGI `world computer model' at
Soka University in Japan which
included data on more than sixty-two
nations. Klein (1995) reports that
the FUGI global model was used in
a simulation of the relationship
between arms reduction and growth
in the global economy. In New York
Utsumi brought together
combinations of technology--including
slow-scan TV and computer
conferencing--to create a kind
of co-laboratory. New York was linked
with Honolulu, Tokyo and Vancouver,
B.C. and participants from Asia
and Canada were linked for real
time participation in the peace
game.
7.4. THE SCENARIO
A United
Nations staff member prepared the scenario for the
1986 game: <<The Japanese
navy is on its way to the mid-Pacific to
stop by force an American company
that is mining on the sea floor.
The American navy is coming to
stop the Japanese navy. So
negotiators on line must resolve
the crisis before the navies
confront one another.>>
<<Parker:
I don't
recall such a scenario made by Fred Campano at that
time.>>
The demonstration
was so successful that while in process <<it
was discussed by the Japanese government.
<<I don't know about this either.>>
Utsumi showed how United Nations
officials--facing an emergency
which had to be resolved quickly--could
in New York make immediate
use of such interconnected tools:
for testing and trying out
alternative strategies for dealing
with global issues; to enable
more creativity and imagination
in the process of global decision-making; for
better political management; and,
most important, to
involve scholars and citizens of
at least three countries,
interactively, in the process.
Computer
conferencing made it possible for a large numbers of
participants on two continents
to comment, make suggestions and ask
questions. This participation could
be read on large electronic
screens by groups gathered in several
countries, including the
negotiators. Thus, people
in all of the locations, or on computer
screens at home, could read the
input and comments of all
participants.
This interactive
technology even made it possible for the
negotiators to deal creatively
with disruption by a protester who
stormed into the conference room
to demand to speak to the
international online audience.
In a way that would not disrupt the
official negotiating process, the
intruder was invited to type his
protest onto a computer so that
it could be read everywhere on the
big screens and on home computer
screens.
On the
foundation of this demonstration, the theory of peace
gaming has been enlarged. Games
can explore action alternatives to
deal with specific controversies
in the Middle East, Northern
Ireland, or terrorism, for example,
in a much more comprehensive and
interactive <<ay ?>>.
Now what
is required for a much larger peace game, much more
influential because it is on the
scale of Pentagon war games.
7.5 WHY PLAY SUCH GAMES?
Tens of
millions are trained and equipped to wage war and very
few are trained to wage peace.
There are tens of thousands of highly
trained military officers and strategists,
but few are trained in
the arts of negotiation and other
ways for peaceful resolution of
disputes. The internet can be used
at very small cost for what if
peace gaming and training of negotiators
Military forces are
increasingly used as peacekeepers,
but the art is as yet very
primitive. Could we simulate a
larger system on the scale of
astronomy/outer space models, or
the world weather and oceanographic
systems?
Monitoring
systems are being put in place to give advance
warning of possible conflicts.
As the Pentagon tries out possible
battle strategies, can researchers
experiment with global-scale
technologies to discover better
strategies for peace? For example,
new alternatives to ineffective
sanctions or ways to make sanctions
more effective? Other such ideas
and questions were proposed at the
U.S. Institute of Peace virtual
diplomacy conference--and subsequent
online discussion--in April, 1997.
PeaceNet--the
computer conferencing system that brought
together most peace organizations
and data bases--can mobilize tens
of thousands of people simultaneously
for anti-war protests. One of
the action networks of the Institute
for Global Understanding, it
now reaches to every continent
to coordinate data bases and action
of hundreds of peace organizations.
That global computer network has
included, for example: a Peace
Law cases database, work and plans
for peace research and action groups,
news and conferences of the
peace research and action organizations,
planning and mobilization
for peace actions, and much more.
Can it be used for simulations to
examine the effectiveness of various
kinds of political action?
Easier-to-use
software for peace gaming is being created, for
example for the UNESCO sponsored
GENIe project at Case Western
Reserve University and the ICONS
project at the University of
Maryland. Software has been proposed
for simulations of United
Nations structure and assemblies,
for mock world court simulations
for airing grievances that may
lead to conflict; for diagnosis and
dramatization of potential crises
through `global TV political
theater' and for simulations of
crisis management alternatives.
7.6. UNIVERSITIES ROLE
The beginnings
of an "electronic" consortium of political
science departments of universities
in many countries (Utsumi 1986)
is seen in collaboration as in
the ICONS project "international
diplomacy simulation." It early
connected twenty universities
worldwide so that Students could
play the roles of diplomats in
simulation/negotiation games. ICONS
has used scenarios--in part been
prepared by the U.S. State Department--in
arms control, nuclear
proliferation, human rights issues,
etc. (<<wilkenfeld>> 1983.)
Action/research,
already a significant dimension of the
emerging virtual electronic university,
may be the beginning of
"virtual" Departments of Political
Science, Diplomacy, Mediation and
Negotiation within the "global
virtual university. Many students
today are unwilling to sit passively
while lecturers just theorize
and talk about action to deal with
problems when the internet makes
interactive involvement in real
actions possible.
The use
of Big Science for research on war prevention, peace
making and peace building, however,
requires much more than a
`virtual' consortium of political
science departments. Such a
consortium in the global
virtual university also needs to involve
departments of economics, law,
sociology and much more. If this kind
of research/action project--which
requires collaboration among many
disciplines-- accomplished nothing
else, it could stimulate trans-disciplinary
discussion and enlarge the imagination
in seeking
alternatives to violence. Peace
gaming in the university context
might then become more holistic
and comprehensive in scope than
Pentagon-style war games, dealing
more with the causes of war.
7.7. SHARED AND OPEN DATA BASES
An adequate
data base for peace gaming can be created by also
bringing together resources now
available in other data bases such
as those of the National Security
Network Virtual Library. It
connects data bases, for example,
on arms control, international
law, human rights, ecology, migration,
terrorism and crime networks.
The existing data, in many places,
is organized as a decentralized
catalog. It is hosted at the Center
for Security Studies and
Conflict Research in Switzerland
and is part of the World Wide Web
meta-library.
International
conflict often results from poor decisions,
often resulting from poor information
and complexity. No head of
government has comprehensive enough
information for adequate
decision-making, and most citizens
are less well informed. More
effective peace negotiations are
now possible because of more
comprehensive and complex data
bases and better strategies for
organizing and using information
in the decision cycle. New
technologies can therefore empower
the process of discovering,
elaborating, and testing new alternatives
for diplomatic action.
The value
of building simulations upon competent data bases
was demonstrated when graduate
students at M.I.T., for example,
developed a computer model which
made it possible for United Nations
"Law of the Sea" negotiations to
be much more successful than
otherwise might have been possible.
(McCorduck 1985) The M.I.T.
computer model made it possible
for all countries, even the poorest
and weakest, to participate with
the major powers as equals in the
negotiations. All nations had equal
access to sophisticated data and
to modeling which examined the
probable results of various
alternatives. (Antrim 1986.) Even
if negotiations are totally
secret, scholars everywhere can
continue to add alternative
suggestions to the data banks,
and the computers can continue to
cross-index and process all such
information for the negotiators to
consider.
7.8. EXPANDED TECHNOLOGIES
One missing
element in the 1986 peace game was software such
as that for a global problem-solving
program developed at Case
Western Reserve University (Mesarovic
1988). Demonstrations at the
United Nations showed that the
system could be used to explore
alternatives and the consequences
of various kinds of actions that
might be taken to solve a particular
crisis. In time, those involved
in negotiations over specific international
conflicts can continue
to fine tune such computer models
so as to tailor them for use in
that particular conflict. Systems
for Computer-Aided-Negotiations
can include the counsel of experts--with
`expert systems" as one
component--is a computer-conferencing
`think tank.'
Utsumi
proposes to construct a "Globally Distributed Decision
Support System" for a plus sum
peace game. This system will draw
together many computers, in various
locations, to share together in
the development of--and gaming
with--already prepared simulation
submodels. His system would include:
a "meta-language" for improved
communication among users of submodels;
the development of
distributed systems; a new scheduling
algorithym, the Virtual Time
concept which allows for the organization
and exchange of
information among dispersed, dissimilar
computers; and other
technologies for truly global-scale
gaming.
7.9. EMPOWERED COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Morton
Kaplan in Toward Professionalism in International
Theory, says that although great
individual minds may have been
responsible for spectacular human
advances at times, from now on
human progress will require a community
of minds in which theories
are collectively developed, criticized,
applied, and tested. Until
that happens, he says, human thought
in the areas of war, peace, and
international relationships will
continue to be too simplistic and
inadequate. As the bulldozer
becomes one component in a system for
empowering human hands to do physical
work--to move mountains--so
now the internet can be used to
empower human minds to deal with
overwhelmingly complex "mental
mountains" that limit the human
vision in internatinal affairs.
When we
speak of `peace games,' some people visualize some
nintendo-scale game. But millions
of brains must mobilize to wage
war. So must not successful alternatives
to war also mobilize minds
and resources on a similar scale
to wage peace? Utsumi therefore
proposes gaming simulations on
a very large scale to help decision
makers deal with interwoven problems.
He calls for a "Globally
Distributed Decision Support System"
with autonomously managed
simulation submodels at distributed
locations. He wants mind-empowerment tools
to help people do better thinking.
Politicians can
be aided in examining the political
models--often in the
unconscious--which have led too
often to war.
7.10. CO-LABORATORIES FOR PEACE
When legislation
was proposed for a U.S. Peace Academy, like
West Point and Annapolis, many
asked what peacemaking skills it
would teach? In its 1997
conference on `virtual diplomacy' the
United States Institute of Peace
was exploring one possibility: the
training of conventional state
department personnel or negotiators.
Thus we
see signs that a truly global co-laboratory is coming
into existence as such peace institutes
and academies in many
countries begin to interconnect
and cooperate online with
universities, first perhaps those
which have peace studies
departments. All kinds of possibilities
for waging peace can be
explored more holistically with
greater precision, including the
diagnosis of problems and the definition
of issues and alternatives
in the most complex situations.
War games,
the nations feel, must be secret and official,
where the quest for peace can be
a more open process. Mandelbrot
suggests that human beings have
missed a whole range of
possibilities because researchers
have not previously had the tools
needed to deal with complexity,
to understand chaos, turbulence, and
disorder. "Less war" requires
the ability to cope with and manage
complexity; and massive increases
in research findings and
information lead to greater and
greater complexity. Yet it is
increasingly possible to organize
and manage a great deal of
sophisticated data. This may help
negotiators overcome what Barbara
Tuchman has called the pursuit
of folly (political weakness leads to
tragic blunders).
The value
of computer peace simulations, to paraphrase Seymour
Papert, will be determined by their
success in helping us ask the
most fundamental questions and
solve the most desperate of human
global problems. Gilpin, in discussing
war games, says that the
economic and military changes which
result from the use of computer
and other advanced technologies
are bringing human society into an
age wherein more is to be gained
through cooperation and an
international division of labor
than through strife and conflict.
For in our electronic global society
all people will either lose or
win together.
Brother
Austin David Carroll, exploring the use of simulations
at a Catholic Peace Center, proposed
models of how human minds
function-- especially those of
diplomats--in matters of peace and
war. He saw a proposed `war control"
modeling system as being like
the system of ground control which
regulates air traffic.
A major
obstacle to effective use of large-scale modeling,
Licklider observed, is that even
the most sophisticated computer
model is not sufficient if it is
disconnected from the real world.
Exploration can be carried out
within simulated environments, of
course, but validation is impossible
without real world connections.
Global planning would require an
extensive hierarchical system of
models reaching out and connecting
to the real environment. The
network model," he pointed out,
"is susceptible of development in
either of two modes." One features
cooperation, sharing, meetings of
minds across space and time in
a context of responsive programs and
readily available information.
The other
is characterized by supervision, regulation,
constraint, and control. It is
clear, he said, that the first can be
realized only through a long, hard
process of deliberate study,
experiment, analysis, and development,
whereas the second can merely
evolve under the pressure of economic
competition and the criterion
of local gain. What is urgently
needed, therefore, is a broad and
sustained program aimed at formulating
the concept in terms of the
public interest and in developing
it accordingly."
7.11. SIMULATING A TRANSFORMATION
OF THE WAR SYSTEM?
A very
large simulation and game might model possible ways to
transform the war system itself
into a more successful peace -development
system<<,>> especially in
countries where the military
overthrow democracies or where
soldiers loot people's homes. So far,
the most advanced technologies
have mostly been used politically to
empower military defense and not
for ideas and methods for
successfully winning peace and
supporting democracy. Fernbach calls
symbolic processing the "sleeping
giant" of the future which can
make it possible for problems to
be examined and solved on a larger
and larger scale. Can it
be used to discover and explore new kinds
of power which can be used in defense
of justice, human rights, and
against aggressors?
A holistic
gaming system, we suggest, would need to
incorporate solutions to many other
of society's most intractable
problems, such as those we will
explore next.
**********************************************
ATTACHMENT IV
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:04:18 -0500
(CDT)
From: "G. Parker Rossman" <grossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu>
To: Tak Utsumi <utsumi@www.friends-partners.org>
Subject: Re: Your Chapter 7
Thanks, Tak, for reviewing my chapter
so helpfully.
It was Compano who gave me that
scenario. I have tried to get in touch with
him again but my letter was returned,
no longer at that address.
Perhaps he is back in the Philippines.
I will drop that section of the
chapter.
I am getting good help from various
people I have sent chapters to, and many
helpful suggestions for revisions.
We had a veryw int eresting time in
Germany, including conferences
on the future of the university with the former
president of Hunmboldt University.
Also a very good day in Poland.
I continue to be impressed with
your progress and projects. When I get
this done I hope to write a third
volume, comparing what 2 or 3 specific
unviersities are doing. Peace
Parker Rossman
grossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu
3 Lemmon Drive
author, EMERGING WORLDWIDE ELECTRONIC
Columbia MO 65201
UNIVERSITY (Praeger, 1993)
home page: http://www.trib.net/~prossman
****************************************
ATTACHMENT V
Excerpt from
Proposed Book
"Electronic Global University System and Services"
Part I/Chapter 2/Section 1.1 GLH in July, 1986
at
<http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/Bookwriting/PART_I/Chapter_II/Chapter_2_total.html#anchor725031>
1.1 GLH in July, 1986
The GLOSAS project began with a
demonstration of global-scale peace-gaming at
the conference on "Crisis Management
and Conflict Resolution" by the World
Future Society (WFS) in New York
City, in July of 1986. It was one of the
largest and perhaps most successful
demonstration of global gaming/simulation
organized so far. The event was
a global gaming simulation sessions on a
crisis scenario involving the U.S.-Japan
trade and economy issues. The
multimedia teleconferencing sessions
used voice, slow-scan TV [SSTV], computer
text and data, graphics, and a
simulation model. Nearly 1,500 persons took
part, in New York, Tokyo, Honolulu
and at the World's Fair in Vancouver, B.C.
Fred Campano of the United Nations
wrote a game scenario, and Akira Onishi of
Soka University in Tokyo supplied
his FUGI model of the world economy [3]
(Onishi, A., 1986).
Noted U.S. economists (Professor
Lester C. Thurow of M.I.T., Provost William
Nordhaus of Yale, Mr. Keith Johnson
of Townsend and Greenspan Company) were
panelists of this event and electronically
interconnected with Japanese
counterparts (Professor Onishi
of Soka University, and President Shishido of
International University) for three
days of computer-assisted negotiations.
Several hypothetical policies were
examined. One question raised by Donald
Straus (President Emeritus of American
Arbitration Association) was the effect
of raising military expenditures
in Japan to the American level while lowering
those of the U.S. to the present
Japanese level. Simulation ran overnight
predicted that the balance of trade
would thus be even by the year 2000, with
necessity of cooperation, rather
than competition, by both countries in the
future (Nikkei Shimbun, Aug. 8,
1986 in Japanese and with English
translation). This clearly indicated
the cost and dilemma of American's
nuclear umbrella protecting Japan's
economic prosperity, thus threatening
American's economic prosperity.
This gaming simulation lasted three
evenings. At the end of each session,
Onishi executed new economic parameters
on his FUGI model which parameters
were discussed and agreed by both
parties in New York and Tokyo, and sent his
computational results back to New
York at the next session for continuing
discussions. All participating
sites had Colorado Video's slow-scan image
transceiver which were connected
through a telephone bridge so that all sites
could receive/send their images.
Audio/voice could be sent through the same
POTS line, except while transmitting
images. Onishi's computer outputs were
sent to New York by fax via another
telephone line. As soon as it arrived, it
was copied to transparencies, and
projected on to a large screen which was
then transmitted by the slow-scan
transceiver to all participating sites. We
used real-time chatting feature
of EIES for back-stage coordination.
This event with combined use of
inexpensive delivery systems afforded an
opportunity to see how academic
departments might become linked across
national boundaries for the purpose
of joint study, research and planetary
problem-solving without expending
high cost for satellite video. After this
successful sessions, several former
high ranking officers of the U.S./Japanese
governmental agencies expressed
their strong interest in a similar multi-media
teleconferencing on a more regular
basis to establish an early warning system
of the both countries' ever-closely
interwoven economic and trade
relationships. Systems analysis
for systemic change at the global level is a
precondition for any significant
resolution to today's global-scale problems,
as has been advocated by the GLOSAS
Project since it was originated in 1972.
>From this initial effort, a series
of "Global Lecture Hall (GLH)" (TM) has
commenced, spanning many countries
around the world.
****************************************
List of Distribution
Mr. John H. Southworth
Distance Education Director
UH Laboratory School
Curriculum Research & Development
Group
University of Hawaii Laboratory
School
1776 University Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
808-956-6871
Fax: 808-956-4933
E-mail: south@hawaii.edu
http://www.hawaii.edu/crdg
Dr. Parker Rossman
3 Lemmon Drive
Columbia MO 65201-5413
573-443-3256
FAX: 314-876-5812 (emergency)
grossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu
jrossman@mail.coin.missouri.edu
grossman@bigcat.missouri.edu
http://www.trib.net/~prossman
http://trib.net/~prossman/
Mr. Donald B. Straus
Somes Meadow, Somesville
Mt. Desert, ME 04660
straus@tmn.com
Mr. Myron Nordquist
Legislative Counsel
U.S. Senator Conrad Burns' Office
187 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603
202-224-6808
Fax: 202-224-8594
Cell: 301-646-8153
myron_nordquist@burns.senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/~burns/
804-924-7573 -- at the U. of VA.
Fax: 804-982-2622 -- at the U.
of VA.
Ben I. Haraguchi
President
Foundation for the Support of the
United Nations (FSUN)
809 United Nations Plaza, Suite
1200
New York, NY 10017
USA
Tel: +1-212-986 8114
Fax: +1-212-986 8131
haragucb@arentfox.com
bharaguchi@fsun.org
http://www.fsun.org
**********************************************************************
* Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E.,
Chairman, GLOSAS/USA
*
* (GLObal Systems Analysis and
Simulation Association in the U.S.A.) *
* Laureate of Lord Perry Award
for Excellence in Distance Education *
* Founder of CAADE
*
* (Consortium for Affordable and
Accessible Distance Education) *
* President Emeritus and V.P. for
Technology and Coordination of *
* Global University
System (GUS)
*
* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing,
NY 11355-3998, U.S.A.
*
* Tel: 718-939-0928; Fax: 718-939-0656
(day time only--prefer email) *
* Email: utsumi@columbia.edu;
Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676
*
* http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/
*
**********************************************************************
Return to: Global University
System Early 2000 Correspondence
Web page by Steve
McCarty, World Association for Online
Education President