Californian and W. German Students Hammer Out Simulated Arms Pact : Teams Take Roles of U.S. and Soviet Negotiators to Study ‘Real World’

Students from California and West German universities--divided into “U.S.” and “Soviet” delegations--labored for three weeks here in simulated arms control negotiations and finally came up with complicated agreements to reduce nuclear weapons.

The students then submitted the pacts to a panel of experts who played first the role of the Politburo for the “Soviet” team and then the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the “U.S.” group.

“The idea is for the negotiators to realize that ultimately they have to submit their agreement to political superiors who may have different sets of priorities on arms control,” UCLA professor William C. Potter said. “We want to make sure the students are aware of the real world in arms limitations negotiations.”

Potter, who heads the Center for International and Strategic Affairs at UCLA, was assisted in the simulated arms control program, conducted at the University of Bonn, by Prof. G. Allen Greb of the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego.

There were about 15 students on each team, mostly political science majors, with Americans and West Germans on each sides. They were briefed beforehand by U.S. and German experts.

Each student was given a specific role. For instance, Marina Yarnell, a senior at UC San Diego, represented the KGB, the Soviet secret police; Joan Mitchell, from the same university, was in charge of Soviet air defenses.

The American team was headed by Irina Rabinovich, who emigrated from the Soviet Union six years ago and is now studying international relations at UCLA.

The panel of experts to which the treaties were submitted included the two American professors, West German strategic experts and U.S. diplomats experienced in arms control talks. Among the latter were Michael Moody of the U.S. mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Robert Heath of the U.S. Embassy in Bonn.

This class--two are held each year--negotiated three separate treaties: intercontinental strategic weapons, intermediate range weapons and anti-satellite weapons.

“It is very hard work,” Mitchell said. “I did my senior thesis on U.S. and NATO relations and I find it fascinating to be here to work with German students and get their perspectives. You certainly get a mix of views.”

Many of the students eventually hope to get jobs in the arms control or strategic studies field, with the U.S. government or with some specialized agency such as the Rand Corp. of Santa Monica, Calif.

“I think some of these advanced students could move from the classroom to the U.S. delegation in Geneva without much trouble,” Potter said, with evident pride.

“Each simulation turns out differently. You get involved with the dynamics of the people involved, and sometimes the group concentrates on certain areas to the exclusion of others. For instance, this time, verification of how many nuclear arms or missiles people have did not seem to be the stumbling block that it sometimes is.”

Some of the students have participated in previous simulations, but on the other side of the table. For example, Californians Brad Belsheim this time played the role of the general in charge of Soviet strategic rocket forces; last time, he represented the CIA.

“We were very concerned about verification, so it was interesting to see the process from the other perspective, of the Soviets,” he said. “I can see how the Russians would really fear the new Trident missile system.”

Yarnell, who represented the KGB, said: “I played an American role a year ago, so this time I tried to put myself into the feelings of the Soviets and adopted their line of reasoning in negotiations. Doing this helped me to see how they might have taken positions I would have considered intransigent.

“I also saw their fears about President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and, while I used to be for that measure, I am now tending to see it from the Soviet perspective, that it could be destabilizing in arms control.”

Still, Soviet emigree Rabinovich said some observers think the simulated negotiations lack an accurate representation of the Soviet point of view. The students, she said, whether American or West German, tend to behave according to the Western perspective.

Whatever the weaknesses of the simulation, as Potter and Greb see it, it gives an added practical aspect to the study of arms control and nuclear strategic thinking.

After the session with the “Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” student Smith said: “We survived, but the committee certainly zeroed in on our weak points--particularly where our language was weak. With this kind of hard-headed evaluation of the treaties we worked out, you tend to get a more realistic view of how things are actually done.”