Dispute in the East China Sea in 2016 (NSC) — Student

Set in September 2016. Japan has long maintained an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that encompasses the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, over which it has administrative control. China declared its own ADIZ in 2013, stating it had the right to take military action against any aircraft that entered the zone without prior notification. Japan, along with the United States and South Korea, has protested the Chinese ADIZ and refuses to conform to China’s demand for prior notification. Japanese civilian and military aircraft continue to operate in the skies above the East China Sea. The intensification of the island dispute has raised political sensitivities in both countries, making it difficult for leaders to ignore the increasing interaction between ships and aircraft in the area. China now sends its coast guard to patrol the islands alongside Japan’s coast guard. The changing balance of military and economic power in Asia, growing popular distrust between the two nations, and deep dependence on the sea lanes for access to energy resources and trade have heightened concerns that Japan and China may inadvertently end up in an armed clash. Miscalculation by their militaries or an unforeseen incident provoked by fishermen or sovereignty activists could trigger a crisis. Washington does not take a position on the disputed sovereignty claims, but the United States has a treaty commitment to defend Japanese territory, including territory under its administrative control, against attack or the threat of attack. Because the use of force between China and Japan would likely lead to U.S. involvement, Washington has a stake in deterring and dissuading aggression by either party. The U.S. government has decided to convene a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to consider any action it should take to ease tensions in the East China Sea and to evaluate its long-term policy in the region.

The United States plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining international order. This is particularly true in an increasingly globalized world. The range of foreign policy issues that require its attention is vast. The United States must consider foreign policy issues from conflicts in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Syria to tensions with Iran and North Korea; from long-standing alliances to complex, evolving relationships with Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa. Issues on the agenda range from the stability of global finance to the promotion of economic opportunity in low-income countries; and from climate to health to nuclear proliferation to terrorism. The United States has a vested interest in myriad world affairs. Further, issues such as immigration, trade, cybersecurity, climate change, and global health underscore the fading distinction between domestic and international matters.

Regardless of the scale of the problem, a successful foreign policy–making process starts by defining interests and goals. Policymakers and their advisors then formulate policy options to meet those goals and consider each option’s strengths and weaknesses. This process is challenging. In the best of times information can be unreliable or incomplete or an adversary’s intentions can be unclear. Often a decision’s consequences can be unknowable. Leaders frequently have to choose from a list on which every option is imperfect. Adding to this uncertainty is the complexity of the U.S. government’s foreign policy machinery. Numerous agencies—each with its own interests and biases—seek to influence how policy is decided and carried out. It takes considerable effort to run a process capable of producing sound policy decisions.

The National Security Council (NSC) plays a critical role in this effort. Its mission is to help the president effectively use a variety of instruments—military, diplomatic, or otherwise—to forge policies that advance U.S. national security goals.

The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947. This act defined the NSC as an interagency body intended to “advise the president with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.” The period after World War II was an age of expanded American interests and responsibilities. The NSC was expected to provide a place where the heads of federal departments and agencies could cooperate to develop recommendations for policies that would advance U.S. aims. The NSC and its staff were also meant to manage the policymaking process. This ensured that the president would receive a full range of advice and opinion from the departments and agencies involved in national security.

The NSC has evolved significantly over the years. The NSC has adapted to the preferences of successive presidents and the challenges they faced. Variables such as the attendees, the frequency of meetings, the manner in which information is passed to the president, the importance of consensus, and the relative dominance of the NSC over other government institutions have changed over the decades.

The NSC has evolved to comprise various interagency committees and a large staff to prepare analysis and coordinate policymaking and implementation. The NSC is at the center of the interagency process. This process is one through which relevant government agencies address foreign policy issues and help the president make and execute policy choices.

I. National Security Advisor

The national security advisor (formally assistant to the president for national security affairs) is at the heart of the NSC structure. The national security advisor’s role is twofold: to offer advice to the president and to coordinate and manage policymaking. Because they have direct access to the president and do not represent a cabinet department, national security advisors are in a unique position. From this neutral perch they drive foreign policy decisions, manage the actors involved, and mitigate conflict throughout the decision-making process.

II. National Security Council Staff

The NSC staff consists of individuals from a collection of agencies that support the president, the vice president, and the administration. NSC staff members are generally organized into directorates that focus on regions or issues. The size and organization of the staff vary with each administration.

The NSC staff provides expertise for the variety of national security policy matters under consideration. It manages numerous responsibilities, including preparing speeches, memos, and discussion papers and handling inquiries from Congress on foreign policy issues. Staff members analyze both immediate and long-standing issues and help prioritize  the agenda.

III. Committee Structure

Committees are at the core of policy deliberation and policymaking in the NSC. They fall into four categories:

This committee structure tackles both immediate crises such as an outbreak of conflict and enduring issues such as climate change. IPCs conduct analysis on an issue, gather views on it and its importance from various departments, formulate and evaluate policy options, and determine what resources and steps would be required to carry out those options. The Deputies Committee manages the interagency process up and down. It decides what IPCs to establish. and gives them specific assignments. It also considers information submitted by the IPCs before relaying it to the Principals Committee or the full NSC.

The Principals Committee is the highest-level setting, aside from the NSC itself, for debating national security issues. It consists of the heads of the NSC’s component agencies. The Principals Committee is essentially all the members of the NSC except the president and vice president. Formal NSC meetings, which the president chairs, occur whenever the president sees fit. They consider issues that require the president’s personal attention and a direct presidential decision.

The goal of this committee structure is to foster consensus on policy options or highlight where and why consensus cannot be reached. If officials at one level agree on an issue, it does not need to go to senior officials for a decision. This practice reserves the president’s time and that of members of the Principals Committee for the most complicated and sensitive debates.

When a crisis erupts issues sometimes do not follow the usual path up from the IPCs. In these cases, NSC staff members and officials in government departments and agencies generally draft papers drawing on their expertise, available intelligence, and any existing contingency plans. Policy options are then debated and decided at the appropriate level. The policymaking process can also deviate from this model based on the preferences of each president.

For the purposes of this NSC simulation, you will role-play the NSC meeting with the assumption that the committees described have already done their jobs. Any critical information has already been passed to the highest-level decision-makers.

Presidential Decisions

When the president makes a policy decision, it can take the form of a verbal instruction recorded and shared with relevant departments and agencies. The president can also issue formal decisions in documents that lay out the administration’s policy and explain its rationale and goals. These documents have gone by different names under different presidents. President Joe Biden issues national security memoranda and national security study memoranda. President Donald Trump issued national security presidential memoranda.

The president can also issue an executive order (EO). EOs are a more formal and public declaration of policy. In contrast, national security directives are generally directed internally to federal departments and are often classified. In the past, presidents have issued EOs for such purposes as facilitating sanctions against foreign individuals and establishing new offices in government departments to carry out foreign policy aims. For federal agencies, both national security directives and executive orders carry the full force of law.

Although many executive branch departments and agencies are involved in foreign policy, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community form the core of the foreign policy bureaucracy. The Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice often play crucial roles as well.

Department of State

The Department of State conducts the United States’ relations with other countries and international organizations. It maintains U.S. diplomatic presence abroad. The Department of State also issues visas for foreigners to enter the country, aids U.S. citizens overseas, and manages other programs to promote American interests. The secretary of state is the president’s principal foreign affairs advisor and has a keen understanding of the United States’ international relations. They are also well informed on the relationships between foreign countries, and the behavior and interests of their governments.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense carries out U.S. defense policy and maintains U.S. military forces. It includes the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as an array of agencies related to defense. The department employs more than two million military and civilian personnel and operates military bases around the world. The secretary of defense is the head of the department and the president’s principal defense policy advisor. They also stay up-to-date on the security situation in foreign countries and the possibilities and implications of U.S. military involvement. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the highest-ranking member of the U.S. armed forces and the president’s top military advisor.

Intelligence Community

The U.S. intelligence community consists of eighteen agencies and organizations, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which gather and analyze intelligence. Each of these agencies has its own mission; for example, the NSA focuses on signals intelligence (information gathered from communications and other electronic signals) and the Defense Intelligence Agency on military information. The director of national intelligence is the president’s principal advisor on intelligence issues. They oversee this network of agencies with the aim of ensuring that they work together and deliver the best possible information to U.S. policymakers.

Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury carries out policy on issues related to the U.S. and global economies and financial systems. The secretary of the treasury serves as one of the president’s chief economic advisors and is responsible for addressing a range of economic concerns. The Treasury’s ten bureaus, which include the U.S. Mint and the Internal Revenue Service, do much of the department’s work, which ranges from collecting tax to printing currency and executing economic sanctions.

Department of Homeland Security

Created soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security works to counter and respond to risks to American security. It focuses on issues such as terrorism prevention, border security and immigration, disaster response, and cybersecurity. Familiar agencies within the department include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. The secretary of homeland security oversees the department and advises the president on relevant issues.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes possible violations of federal law. The Department of Justice represents the U.S. government in legal matters and works more broadly to prevent and respond to crime. Agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration are part of the department, as are divisions focusing on particular areas of law, such as national security and civil rights. Leading the department is the attorney general, who offers legal advice to the president and the heads of other departments.

Tensions between China and Japan have sporadically erupted in the East China Sea over the five small, uninhabited islands the Japanese refer to as the Senkaku and the Chinese call the Diaoyu. The islands have been the subject of competing sovereignty claims by China, Japan, and Taiwan for decades. After a 2010 flare in tensions, Chinese and Japanese naval and air forces began to come in increasingly frequent contact, as both countries sought to demonstrate control over the islands. Both countries established Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ) and demanded that all aircraft give notice before entering them. Both of these zones include the disputed islands. Neither country has recognized the other’s ADIZ, and both continue to send civilian and military aircraft into the East China Sea airspace, claiming that they are doing so legitimately under international law. The increasing tensions in the East China Sea raised concern among observers about the risk of a miscalculation or accident sparking an armed clash between Asia’s two largest powers. 

The United States has maintained a long-standing policy of neutrality in the dispute. As tensions rose, policymakers in Washington grew concerned that competing U.S. interests and commitments could drag the country into the fray. On one hand, the United States is treaty bound to defend Japan in the event of an attack. On the other hand, the United States also has a strong interest in maintaining a stable relationship with China, a major trade partner. The dispute has forced the United States to consider what price it would be willing to pay to fulfill its treaty commitment to Japan’s defense. This is particularly important given that a change in U.S. policy or a U.S. intervention could alter the United States’ relationship with China or Japan. A change in policy could also jeopardize other pressing interests that require the cooperation of either country. These interests include nuclear nonproliferation, global economic growth, climate change mitigation, and the safety of Americans abroad.

Decision Point–Set in September 2016

Over the Summer of 2016, tensions in the East China Sea suddenly ratcheted up. In June, a Chinese frigate sailed through the disputed zone of the East China Sea. Although Chinese coast guard ships passed through the area before, this marked the first appearance of a Chinese naval vessel. In the following weeks, China alleged that Japanese fighters intercepted its military aircraft over the disputed islands. During the incident, Japan’s fighters briefly locked weapons radar on the Chinese aircraft. Two months later, hundreds of Chinese fishing vessels appeared in the waters near the disputed islands in the East China Sea. For the first time, these vessels were accompanied by seven Chinese law enforcement vessels.

With tensions showing no sign of easing, policymakers and media outlets alike have turned their eyes to Washington to see how the United States will respond. The president has convened a National Security Council meeting to consider possible action it could take to ease related tensions. 

Both China and Japan have made historical claims to sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Japan dates its control over the islands to 1895, when the government claimed the territory on the grounds that the islands were uninhabited—belonging to no one. For a number of years, a Japanese family privately owned the islands. After Japan was defeated in World War II, the country was occupied from 1945 to 1952 by the United States, which administered the islands. The United States retained control of the islands even after the end of its occupation of Japan because of the islands’ strategic value as military bases.

In 1969, the islands attracted attention when a geological survey revealed that they likely sit atop vast oil and gas reserves. Then, in 1971, as the United States was negotiating the return of the islands to Japan, both China and Taiwan began publicly issuing claims of ownership. Despite these declarations, President Richard M. Nixon concluded the agreement and gave control of the disputed islands back to Japan. 

China’s claim argued that Japan illegally annexed the islands during the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95. Therefore, the islands should have been returned after World War II, when the Allied powers determined that Japan had to return all the territories it had taken from China. China has dated its sovereignty over the islands to the fourteenth-century. China also provided documents and maps to support this claim. Chinese officials have also described the islands as historically critical to their defenses, shielding China from attacks by the Japanese and other parties.

Taiwan made a similar claim that Japan illegally seized the islands in 1895 and that they should have been returned after World War II. Taiwan argued that when the islands were seized, they were considered a part of its territory. When Japan was ordered to return Taiwan’s occupied territory in 1945, both the mainland and Taiwan belonged to the Republic of China. However, in 1949, the Chinese civil war led to a division of the country. The Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China on the mainland. The government of the Republic of China fled to what is today Taiwan. China claims that Taiwan is a part of its territory, but Taiwan considers itself a separate country and argues that its control over the islands should have been restored following World War II.
 
Although the United States transferred control of the islands to Japan, it stayed neutral in the dispute that followed. Washington has stated that “a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims . . . nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants.” 

Despite their disagreements over the islands, China, Japan, and Taiwan each tried to minimize the effects of the dispute on their overall relations. Although China challenged Japan over the islands in the early 1970s, the two countries still successfully negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978. The two countries became increasingly interdependent trading partners as reforms over the 1980s and 1990s transformed China’s economy and opened the country to global commerce. Taiwan also continued to assert its sovereignty over the islands but maintained close economic and political ties with Japan. 

Tensions flared in 2010, when a Chinese fishing boat collided with Japanese coast guard vessels near the islands. The Japanese detained the captain of the Chinese vessel for more than two weeks. The Japanese charged the Chinese captain with obstructing the coast guard’s official duties. China retaliated by temporarily halting exports of critical materials used in Japan’s high-tech manufacturing industry. Chinese authorities also arrested four Japanese businessmen, accusing them of spying on a Chinese military installation. Japan and China soon resolved this initial flare in tensions. Japan agreed to released the captain and China agreed to release the detained businessmen. Nonetheless, the dispute remained a sensitive issue in both countries.

The issue continued to cause friction between China and Japan. In 2013, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that his country would “expel by force” any Chinese landing on the islands. The next day, a Chinese spokesperson responded by labeling the islands a “core interest.” China had typically used the term core interest only to describe regions it would supposedly defend by force, such as Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Later that year, China announced a new ADIZ over the East China Sea, an area that included the disputed islands.

China and Japan both continued to send their aircraft and naval vessels into the area, in the following years. Yet political leaders in Beijing and Tokyo have also recognized the danger inherent in this increasing military interaction. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Abe met in November 2014, agreeing to resume various diplomatic talks, including over natural resources in the East China Sea. The two leaders have met repeatedly since, but tensions remain high. 

The United States has several interests in the East China Sea. The United States has agreed to defend Japan when territories under the latter’s administration are threatened. The United States has maintained a military presence in Japan since its occupation of the country after World War II. As of 2016, some 54,000 troops were stationed in and around Japan, contributing to the U.S. position as an Asia-Pacific power. The bulk of these forces have been stationed in Okinawa Prefecture, close to the disputed islands. The U.S. military command in Japan has maintained a close relationship with the country’s Self-Defense Forces and often conducted joint exercises with it.

U.S. policy on the territorial dispute between China and Japan has focused on a de-escalation of military tensions and has sought a peaceful settlement of differences. The United States has also sought to address Japan’s defense concerns about the increasing activity of Chinese forces in waters near Japan. Although the United States has maintained its position of neutrality on the issue of sovereignty, it has also stated that the U.S. commitment to defend Japan includes any threat to the islands. In April 2014, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to state that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands fall under the protection of the U.S.-Japan security treaty. 

Nevertheless, as tensions flared in 2016, the United States had an interest in a peaceful resolution. Japan remained a close ally, but stable relations with China were also a significant interest. Washington had sought to expand cooperation with Beijing in the previous years on other issues, such as nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the global economy. 

Both China and Japan wield influence on the U.S. economy. The United States conducted nearly $500 billion in trade with China in 2015, and China invested more than $60 billion in the U.S. economy from 1990 to 2015. Similarly, Japan was responsible for some 846,000 jobs in 2015, and annual trade in goods with Japan totaled nearly $200 billion in 2015. Equally important, China and Japan each held more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities as of September 2016.

A miscalculation or use of force between Asia’s two largest powers therefore bore the risk of destabilizing the region, and disrupting the global economy. This would likely draw the United States into the dispute.

The United States also had an interest in maintaining and strengthening its presence in the Asia-Pacific region more broadly. In 2012, President Obama called for a “pivot to East Asia,” seeking to heighten foreign policy focus on the region. To this end, the United States developed closer military ties with countries in the region, including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam, in an attempt to counter China’s emergence as a great power. At the same time, the United States sought to bolster its relationship with China, supporting an array of confidence-building measures. The United States also invited the Chinese navy to participate in joint military exercises in 2014.

In Asia, the pivot was seen as a response to China’s growing influence in the region. Many countries had raised concerns about China’s rising power and the potential for China to use its regional dominance to restrict other countries’ access to trade routes. China’s Ministry of National Defense criticized the U.S. pivot as an effort to contain China. The Chinese foreign ministry repeatedly asked the United States to play a more neutral role in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute. However, U.S. policymakers have seen Chinese behavior in and around the islands since 2010 as provocative. 

The United States had a number of options as it considered its role in trying to help resolve the East China Sea dispute.

Using diplomatic measures to reduce tensions

Washington could use its leverage to try to persuade Beijing and Tokyo to reduce their military forces in the region or to encourage greater military-to-military communication. It could further urge the two parties to return to negotiations to resolve the dispute peacefully. If China and Japan cannot come to a peaceful resolution alone, the United States could attempt to persuade the parties to accept international arbitration and bring the matter before the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ). It could also express greater vocal support for either China or Japan, in hopes that this support would prompt the other party to stand down. However, if the United States were to lean in favor of China, Japan and other allies in the region could question their close relationships with the United States. And if Washington were to express support for Tokyo, Japan could interpret the support as a blank check to behave recklessly even if it escalated the conflict.

A diplomatic approach has several advantages. If successful, it could peacefully achieve a lasting de-escalation of tensions in the region. It could also entail the least risk of drawing U.S. military forces into conflict and would help maintain stability in the region. Further, a diplomatic approach also posed a lower risk of damage to the United States’ economic relationships with China and Japan. The United States could not be certain, however, that China and Japan would come to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, Japan could criticize the United States for failing to enact a robust response that signals its commitment to Japan’s defense. 

Using U.S. military forces to prevent escalation

The United States could use its military and naval forces to try to contain the incident and prevent escalation. Those efforts could involve increasing naval and air patrols in the East China Sea and conducting military exercises with Japan to increase readiness and demonstrate U.S. commitment to Japanese defense. Such action could keep Chinese and Japanese military forces separate, possibly avoiding further incidents, and deter escalation on the part of the Chinese. It would further signal U.S. resolve in the face of China’s military growth.

At the same time, involving U.S. military personnel in the dispute carried significant risks. The increase of military presence in the region could raise the chances of an accident or miscalculation; any U.S. military response would need to be effectively communicated to both Chinese and Japanese military forces in the area to minimize the risk of an unintended incident. Moreover, any escalation in the situation could put U.S. military personnel at risk. This response could also damage the U.S. relationship with China.

No action

The United States could simply maintain its neutrality and allow China and Japan to resolve the incident on their own. This option would avoid the risks that the other options pose, both to U.S. military personnel and to U.S. relations with China and Japan. However, taking no action could also signal a weak U.S. commitment to its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Further, if China and Japan fail to come to a peaceful resolution and the situation escalates, the United States could face more forceful calls to honor its treaty commitment to defend Japan, requiring greater U.S. involvement than before. 

Print these custom placards for use during your simulation. If you need to edit them, make a copy to your Google Drive.

All National Security Council (NSC) members except the president will write a position memo before the role-play. You can find more details about writing position memos under Student Resources. The president will write a presidential directive after the role-play. More details about that are also under Student Resources.

What is a memorandum?

Ultimately, China and Japan managed to prevent further escalation in the Summer of 2016. The United States observed the situation closely but was not drawn into taking action. Later that year, the United States and other pacific nations held joint exercises with the Chinese navy in a sign of continued cooperation. 

In 2018, Beijing and Tokyo both expressed a desire to “reset” bilateral ties. To this end, the two countries resumed economic talks for the first time in seven years and agreed to establish a crisis hotline to avoid unintended military incidents in the East China Sea. The hotline was delayed, but ultimately established in the spring of 2023. In 2019, China and Japan also took steps to plan an official state visit by Xi Jinping to Tokyo. As of 2023, however, little progress toward a state visit has been made. 

Meanwhile, neither country has lessened its involvement in the East China Sea. Japan has moved to build up its military strength, in part to counter Chinese activity in the region. China and Japan have each increased their military capabilities in the area, installing radar and missile systems and continuing to conduct military drills. The United States has participated in joint exercises with Japan, flying its aircraft over the East China Sea. Despite increased dialogue between the two countries, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands remain a potential source of conflict.

After the debate and deliberation close, the president will announce his or her decision, to be later finalized in the form of a written presidential directive. If time permits, you will participate in a debrief following the president’s announcement.

Be active in this debrief. The role-play might seem to be the most challenging part of the experience, but the debrief is equally important. It will reinforce what you learned during the role-play exercise and refine your analytical skills. It will also force you to step out of your role and to view the case from a personal perspective. You will have the opportunity to discuss any challenges you encountered as you worked through the discussion with your peers and how you felt about the final presidential decision.

The debrief will close with a reflection on the complexities and challenges of crafting foreign policy. This should help clarify your understanding of what you learned and answer any lingering questions. This exercise will also assist you in completing your final assignment, a written reflection.

The following questions are proposed to guide the discussion in the in-class debrief. This is not an exhaustive list and may vary depending on how your role-play exercise unfolded. If your class or group does not hold a debrief, these questions will nonetheless help you reflect on the role-play and write your policy review memo: 

The written reflection is your final assignment in the simulation. In the debrief discussion after the role-play, you and your peers went beyond the role you played and thought about the issue from a variety of perspectives. Now that the National Security Council discussion and debrief are behind you, you can consider whether you personally support your recommended policy given the full spectrum of arguments and considerations that arose. Shedding your institutional role and writing from a personal point of view, you will craft a policy review memo that outlines and reflects on the policy options discussed, incorporating and critiquing the president’s decision where appropriate.

If you played the role of president in the simulation, your memo should still reflect your personal opinion. You can comment on the course of action you ordered as president, further justify it, write more extensively on the options you dismissed, or suggest and support alternate options.

No matter which role you played originally, take into account all you have learned. Your instructor or facilitator will want to see whether and how your understanding of the issue and of the policymaking process has evolved from that expressed in your position memo.

More details about the written reflection are available under Student Resources.

Essential Resources

Additional Resources

Research and Preparation

Sources

Note: If you are assigned the role of president, you will not write a position memo. Instead, you will write a two-page presidential directive (PD) at the conclusion of the role-play. You will address the PD, which will follow a memo format, to the NSC members and inform them of your final decision regarding the policy option or options to be implemented (see below).

If your teacher has chosen to assign you the role of general advisor to the president, you will not need to write the position memo from a particular institutional position. Instead, you will have the flexibility to approach the issue from your own perspective, incorporating a comprehensive assessment of the crisis into your argument.

Click here to see a sample of a position memo.

The format of the presidential directive is simpler than that of a position memo. A directive contains a record of the policy option or options that the president has chosen as well as the accompanying orders to various parts of the government with details on how to carry out these decisions.

Click here to see a sample presidential directive.

During the simulated NSC meeting, you will meet to debate and discuss U.S. policy options in response to the issues outlined in the case. Consistent with the NSC’s mission to advise the president, you should raise the issues that are most important for the president to consider. This will enable them to make the most informed decision on policy options. Though you may or may not agree with this decision, your responsibility as an NSC member is to provide the best possible analysis and advice from the perspective of your role.

Role-play Guidelines

Guidelines

Click here to see a full example of a written reflection.