As the Albanian representative, I completely support the agreement since it is what Albania wanted in the first place. The TTP will effectively gasify the country because, as of now, the country has very limited access to natural gas, and so it relies on hydropower which is subject to fluctuations due to the weather. The ease of access to natural gas will benefit both the Albanian government and its citizens. The government will benefit from tax revenues, procurement, increased foreign investor confidence, and greater integration with other countries. The public will mainly benefit from employment opportunities and reduced gas prices. Since natural gas is significantly cheaper than hydropower, more households in Albania will afford it. It will allow the previously impossible domestic use of natural gas in Albania. Compared to hydropower, the reliability of natural gas will reduce random blackouts, which will materialize into more profits for businesses that heavily rely on electricity.
TTP's main goal is to diversify the supply of natural gas and ensure no single country has too much monopoly power. The shift of power from Russia will promote Albania's and other small countries' energy security and diversify its energy sources. It will allow Albania to make independent policies without being manipulated by countries that control their gas supply. The TTP will also promote internal growth of infrastructure and the creation of jobs in Albania, which will, in the long run, boost the economy and lower the standards of living for its citizens.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, although the TTP serves to benefit Albania greatly, it might cause conflict between the countries and former suppliers like Russia and China, and the European Union as a whole. Further, the low prices and increases availability of natural gas will cause a dependency on hydrocarbons and discourage exploration of renewable energy sources in Albania. This dependency will increase the country's carbon footprint, which will significantly contribute to climate change.
The class negotiations made me realize foreign policy is not usually about who has the best argument, like in court proceedings. Instead, the countries involved consider their economies and the incentive provided. Naturally, every country has to be selfish with their resources until they are assured they will be getting a good deal. I also saw how each country has to begin from the extreme so that as they are gradually persuaded to compromise, they still end up with some benefits. This selfishness may be in the countries' best interest, but it hurts countries with fewer resources. During these discussions, humanity is temporarily abandoned, and the floor is seen as a battlefield, each participant aiming to fight to kill. In my opinion, the division by countries, unions, and interests ends up causing more loss than gain for every participant. Although some are more advantaged than others, each country has something unique they bring to the table. Encouraging withholding resources promotes an individualistic attitude from each country such that no country gets to benefit from the other's resources. However, given the advancement in globalization and international talks, countries are opening up to sharing their resources, though not as much they should.
Secondly, I learned that emotions largely influence foreign policies. It seems rather petty for countries to hold grudges against each other, but it does happen, and it greatly affects policy discussions. Differences in culture or religion could also affect the willingness of certain countries to help other countries. In an attempt to show how strong and not easily manipulated they are, countries end up passing over lucrative deals that would largely benefit their citizens. It is not uncommon for a country to threaten to sever trade with another country if they do not cooperate on a completely unrelated matter. These ultimatums are usually provided in a not-so-kind tone, which sparks negative emotions in the receiving country. Leadership also matters. Some presidents have been known to be temperamental and impulsive, while others have been calm and collected.
Reputation and relationships play a key role in such discussions. For instance, Russia's reputation of withholding natural gas from other countries to propagate its political agenda had ruined its relationships with other countries. Similarly, the alliance between Albania and Turkey allowed the two countries to push for their mutual interests collectively. In a way, a foreign policy discussion is a game of friendships and enemies, a struggle for the fittest. The more friends a country makes, the higher their chances of getting what they want. Consequently, the more enemies they make, the lower their chances of scoring their goals. The ability to make friends and enemies is partly influenced by the diplomatic skills of a country but mostly influenced by their resources. This dynamic gives bigger countries a higher ground in making friends. Further, in the name of friendship and alliances, big countries take advantage of the desperation of smaller countries by offering them unfair deals.
Compromise is part and parcel of foreign policy discussions. Since most countries have conflicting goals, it is impossible for each one to get everything they want. Therefore, as incentives are offered and alliances are formed, governments compromise some of their goals in favor of more important ones. However, due to a lack of enough influence and resources, smaller countries tend to compromise more than their bigger counterparts. I also learned that foreign policies are more political than they are about securing the best deals for citizens. Although governments claim to make decisions with the best interests of the masses at heart, countless compromises have been made that end up hurting the average citizen while benefiting the politician. Sadly, since politicians lead these discussions, it becomes impossible for the citizens' needs to be considered.
The simulation allowed me to see how co-dependent we are as a planet. Although each country would prefer that they did not need other countries, this codependence is what brings us together as human beings, regardless of our nationality, race, or religion. It should be embraced and used as a platform for unity to progress together as a species. Embracing the fact that countries need each other would prevent so many wars, save many lives, and improve people's lives from all nations. Sadly, most countries prefer to manipulate or take by force without paying attention to the long-term effects of such decisions. The simulation made me purpose to make a difference whenever and wherever I can, however small it may be.
In conclusion, although there are many ways in which international discussions can be improved, it is important to identify and appreciate how far we have come as a planet. Such meetings would not have been possible a century ago, evidenced by the many wars in the twentieth century.
