The GAERC:

The General Affairs Council is one of the oldest configurations of the Council. Since June 2002, as the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), it holds separate meetings on General Affairs and on External Relations respectively. It meets once a month. Meetings bring together the Foreign Ministers of Member States. Ministers responsible for European Affairs, Defence, Development or Trade also participate depending on the items on agenda.

At its sessions on General Affairs, the Council deals with dossiers that affect more than one of the Union's policies, such as negotiations on EU enlargement, preparation of the Union's multi–annual budgetary perspective or institutional and administrative issues. It coordinates preparation for and follow-up to meetings of the European Council. It also exercises a role in coordinating work on different policy areas carried out by the Council's other configurations, and handles any dossier entrusted to it by the European Council.

At its sessions on External Relations, the Council deals with the whole of the Union's external action, including common foreign and security policy, European security and defence policy, foreign trade and development cooperation. A priority in recent years for the Council, in cooperation with the Commission, has been to ensure coherence in the EU's external action across the range of instruments at the Union's disposal.

Simulation Rationale:

The rationale underling the simulation was to allow students to experience, practice and experiment in an interactive way the proceedings, negotiations, policymaking methods and content of the Council of Ministers of the EU, as well as the pitfalls and prospects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). By applying the concept of a scientific laboratory, the simulation engaged the students in the capacity of Foreign Ministers participating in a meeting of the GAERC. Each student participating researched the GAERC, the CFSP, the specific country it represented, as well as the agenda. Participants then took on the role of Ministers/ diplomat and jointly explored international, bilateral and regional issues, debated, deliberated, consulted, and then developed solutions to the issues at stake. During the simulation, students employed a variety of communications and critical thinking skills to defend and advance the policies of their respective country.

Participants and organisation:

The simulation was held in the European Forum of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It was organised as a stand alone one day simulation by Lior Herman from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The students participating in the simulation had initially submitted a 2-3 pages outline of their respective simulated countries' positions with regard to the proposed agenda. In addition, a short workshop on negotiation skills and rules of procedure was conducted before the simulation.

Two foreign simulations experts, particularly with respect to European institutions participated in the simulation. Ms. Claudia Sand from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) represented the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, and Mr. Harald Wilkoszewski from the Max Planck Institute in Rostock represented the Czech coming EU Presidency. Both experts are also staff members of the Munich European Forum, specialized in simulations of European and transatlantic institutions.

The roles simulated were: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic (next EU Presidency), Denmark, France (current EU Presidency), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, EU Commission, and the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (20 roles in total).

Simulation summary:

The simulation was launched with greetings by Ms. Catherine Hirschwitz from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and Dr. Itzhak Brudny on behalf of the European Forum.

Although, officially taking place on December 21st, the simulation began some 10 days earlier, when all participants received a preliminary agenda from the Council Secretariat. A week before the simulation this agenda was altered by a scenario, which consisted of several major international developments to which the EU is expected to respond to. This change was methodologically done in order to force the participants to adapt their positions (to which they were learning and preparing) to developments and constraints as if in "real-time" diplomacy and to make them think how their country will respond in such a situation.

The scenario consisted of three issues, dealing with different geographical regions, while all relating to the issue of energy security, either in military capabilities or in civilian usage. Although all these issues had differential importance to the EU and its Member States, they were also closely related to current developments. These issues were: (1) Response to an Iranian nuclear experiment; (2) a clash in the extremely rich with unexploited resources and minerals Arctic region, involving Denmark, Canada, Russia and the US; and (3) Russian retaliation to an EU-African agreement on a Trans- Saharan gas pipeline, by cutting energy supply to Europe; this final part of the scenario became an almost exact reality only few days after the simulation.

The Preliminary Agenda included the three items on the scenario, defined broadly, so as to allow each participant to develop appropriate positions. Many of the participants have responded prior to the actual beginning of the simulation through an on-line group (created for the simulation), making statements, proposals and approaching bilaterally other members in order to negotiate and form coalitions.

The actual simulation was opened with a round of official statements from all participants, revealing partially or wholly their true interests. Later and following an "agenda-setting" process, the participants negotiated the adjustment of the agenda according to their interests and began with deliberations and negotiations, in line with the specific Rules of Procedure that governs Council meetings. Negotiations were conducted in three manners. The first manner which was used was official debate, according to a speakers' list and other formalities. The second manner, which was mainly used toward consensus-reaching, was informal debate, which allowed more flexibility and less formality at the negotiation table. The third manner of conduct took the form of informal caucus, whereby participants left the negotiations table to informally intimately discuss the debated issues, form coalitions, draft and crystallise proposals and break ice.

At the end of the day, the participants were close to reaching an agreement on a declaration regarding the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, but the inter-linkages with other agenda items and diversity of positions prevented them from completing the ambitious agenda they set. As a written outcome, a draft declaration was written based on negotiation of several proposals by groups of Member States.

The simulation was concluded with a "reality-check" session of discussion between all the participants. The panel of guest experts reviewed and noted participants’ individual performance and discussed by what means the negotiated-issues and the deliberations were in accordance with the actual real conduct in the Council of Ministers. The discussion also highlighted negotiation skills acquired during the simulation.

The simulation was highly successful in meeting its goals, as described above. Students' performance was based on thorough prior-learning and participants’ performance was exceptionally well and inclusive. Participants in the simulations have submitted a 2-3 pages report on their experience from the simulation and its outcomes.

Lior Herman