The simulation dealt with the process from original group position, represented by MEPs from the main political groups, to plenary debate and informal negotiations of a compromise joint resolution.

The Preparation

The students were prepared for the subject and their respective roles in the simulation in a preparation lesson (two weeks prior to the simulation itself), where they received an introduction lesson on the work of the European Parliament, and where assigned a political party, with a group position represented by a draft text of a resolutions. Each student has chosen an MEP from the group to represent, and spent 2 weeks in studying the chosen MEP profile, with an emphasis on his/her positions on Iran.

The guided research towards the simulation was tutored by Simona Halperin, the counselor for the European Parliament affairs at the Israeli Mission to the EU up to 2006. The event itself took place at the Maiersdorf conference centre at the Hebrew University.

The Simulation

The simulation was opened by Mrs. Maya Sion, Member of the Academic Committee of the European Forum at the Hebrew University and Ms. Catherine Hirschwitz, who greeted the students in the name of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

The simulation began with the opening statements by the political groups representatives, who gave an opening statements at the general debate, representing the group positions at the opening of negotiations.

The informal discussions immediately showed the split between demands of sanctions as a mechanism of achieving progress on the human rights front and the approach of "leaving all options open" to leaving the door open to negotiations and renewing as soon as possible the human rights dialogue. The issue of bringing the context of the nuclear issue also spurred a heated debate. At this stage the MEPs started an informal discussion, forming small negotiating teams, and started working on a text based on the draft of the EPP.

The negotiations of the Preamble paragraphs went rather smooth, and helped calm the heated debate, since the preamble paragraphs represent the concerns and there is little controversy over them. However, as soon as the discussions reached the operational paragraphs, the MEPs demonstrated how important every word is in the forming of the EP position, and debates over words were held with utmost importance.

Deliberations in the EP plenary at the conclusion of the negotiation of a compromise resolution demonstrated again the diversity of opinions even within political groups, when MEPs speaking on behalf of the group presented the group position, while the second round of speakers – speaking on their own behalf – where not afraid to divert and express a more distinct position. The vote ended with 17 in favor, and 2 rejecting the compromise achieved.

Conclusions

The mechanism and workings of the European Parliament became clear to all participants, as well as demonstrating that the European Parliament is a political body, which houses a variety of opinions, with great variety - even within political groups. The political negotiations exercise became clearer to students who were involved in negotiating every word in the final compromise.

The role of Parliament in issues of foreign relations lies in setting the tone in issues of human rights, and signaling the voice of the people of Europe to both the Commission and Council within the EU, as well as the country concerned (in this case, Iran).

All these efforts still are only a first step in the engagement process with Iran and it is far from practical policy yet: the Commission and Council will have to decide if they take on board EPs recommendations, in their further attempts at negotiating with Iran.

The students agreed that they were given a rare inside-look into the workings of the European Parliament, where its power lies and what is its role in the field of external relations.

Simona Halperin