Background:
Divergent Options is a non-politically aligned non-revenue generating national security website that, in 1,000 words or less, provides unbiased, dispassionate, candid articles that assess a national security situation, present multiple options to address the situation, and articulate the risk and gain of each option. Please note that while we assess a national security situation and may provide options, we never recommend a specific option.
Below you will see a Call for Papers. If you are not interested in writing on this topic, we always welcome individual articles on virtually any national security situation an author is passionate about. Please do not let our call for papers cause you to hesitate to send us your idea. We look forward to hearing from you!
Call for Papers:
Based on a phone conversation in 2023 between Divergent Options Founder Phil Walter and Blogs of War Founder John Little, together we are offering this Call for Papers to see what kind of national security articles can be generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based on the prompt the AI receives.
Yes, we understand this Call for Papers is actually examining a potential writer’s skill in writing a prompt for an AI, more than the writer’s ability to write an article.
We also understand the AI may or may not be able to generate citations / end notes — that is okay as this Call for Papers is an experiment for us.
In addition to limiting your submission to 1,000 words and writing using our Options Paper or Assessment Paper templates which are designed for ease of use by both writers and readers alike, the prompt provided to the AI must also be submitted (see example below / the prompt will not be counted in the word limit).
Submissions will be published on Divergent Options and select submission will be republished on Blogs of War.
Please send your article to submissions@divergentoptions.org by April 20, 2024.
Example Prompt Provided to ChatGPT-4 — No Additional Guidance Provided — Writers May Not Use This Prompt
Write a maximum 1,000 word article on a pressing US national security issue of your choice using the following template: “National Security Situation: Russian Activities in Europe / Chinese Activities in the South China Sea / Civil War in Syria. Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a retired military member. Author believes in Responsibility to Protect. And / or the article is written from the point of view of Latvia towards Russia, Vietnam towards China, or the U.S. towards the Civil War in Syria. Background: A tightly-worded description of the national security situation and the driving forces[1]. Significance: Why does this national security situation matter? What is the impact? To whom does the national security situation matter? Option #1: Something that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation[2]. Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #1? Note: Risks can take a variety of forms. Here are some examples: – Political (e.g. ruin a reputation or alliances or cause distrust in the international community) – People (e.g. military or civilian deaths) – Resources (e.g. spending money on an endless war) – Organizational (e.g. focusing on counterinsurgency so long that you forget how to fight a conventional war) – Balancing present and future challenges (e.g. if we do X now, we won’t be able to do Y in the future, and Y has worse ramifications in the future than X does now) Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #1? Option #2: Something different from Option #1 that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. Note: The focus is on being DIFFERENT from Option #1. As an example, there were two dominant options for how to address the national security situation of an insurgency in Iraq in late 2006 through early 2007. One option involved deploying additional U.S. troops to Iraq. The other option involved maintaining current U.S. troop levels in Iraq but withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraqi cities and turning security duties over to the Iraqi army. There was a choice between two different options in the same national security situation. When developing options, think differences–not variations on a theme. Another example of differences is U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal’s preferred Afghanistan strategy, which involved a troop increase to secure the population from the Taliban whereas U.S. Vice President Joe Biden preferred a reduced U.S. troop
Output Received From Example Prompt Provided to ChatGPT-4
**National Security Situation: Chinese Activities in the South China Sea**
**Date Originally Written: February 13, 2024**
**Date Originally Published: February 13, 2024**
**Author and / or Article Point of View:** The author is a retired military member with extensive experience in maritime security. The article is written from the point of view of Vietnam towards China’s assertive activities in the South China Sea. The author believes in the Responsibility to Protect principle and emphasizes the importance of sovereignty, international law, and regional stability.
**Background:** The South China Sea is a strategic maritime link connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans, rich in resources and critical for global trade. In recent years, China has intensified its activities in the region, including land reclamation, the construction of military outposts on disputed islands, and assertive naval operations. These actions challenge the sovereignty of coastal states, including Vietnam, and threaten regional security and international maritime norms.
**Significance:** China’s activities in the South China Sea matter because they not only destabilize a region critical for global trade but also challenge the international rule-based order. The militarization of disputed islands and potential control over maritime routes could lead to conflicts, disrupt global supply chains, and increase military tensions in the Asia-Pacific region. This situation is significant to coastal states like Vietnam, which sees its sovereignty and economic interests directly threatened, as well as to global powers interested in maintaining freedom of navigation and regional stability.
**Option #1:** Vietnam could lead a diplomatic initiative to form a multilateral coalition with other Southeast Asian nations and external powers to negotiate a binding Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea that emphasizes the importance of sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, and adherence to international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
**Risk:** Forming a coalition and negotiating a COC with China may lead to temporary diplomatic strains and could be perceived by China as a containment strategy, potentially exacerbating tensions. There’s also the risk that internal disagreements within ASEAN or among external powers could undermine the initiative’s coherence and effectiveness.
**Gain:** A successfully negotiated COC would provide a framework for the peaceful resolution of disputes, enhance regional stability, and reinforce the importance of international law. It could also reduce the likelihood of unilateral actions by establishing agreed-upon norms and behaviors, thereby protecting the sovereignty and maritime rights of smaller coastal states like Vietnam.
**Option #2:** Vietnam could enhance its maritime capabilities and pursue strategic partnerships with major global powers such as the United States, Japan, and India, focusing on naval cooperation, intelligence sharing, and capacity building. This approach aims to deter aggressive actions through a credible defense posture and international support.
**Risk:** Increasing military capabilities and deepening security partnerships may escalate tensions, leading China to further militarize the region. It could also trigger an arms race, diverting resources from economic development and potentially isolating Vietnam from important regional diplomatic efforts.
**Gain:** Strengthening Vietnam’s maritime capabilities and international partnerships would enhance its defense posture, making unilateral aggression more costly and thereby deterring potential coercive actions by China. It would also signal to the international community Vietnam’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and contributing to regional security, potentially garnering broader support against coercive practices in the South China Sea.
**Other Comments:** The South China Sea dispute is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a careful balance between assertiveness and diplomacy. Vietnam’s approach must be pragmatic, leveraging international law, regional cooperation, and strategic partnerships to protect its interests while avoiding escalation into open conflict.
**Recommendation: None.**
