International Negotiation, history homework help

Six forum responses 150 words each with works cited. The forum posts are listed below that need responses. Two topics: international negotiation and American government.

Topic International Negotiation

Post 1:

When examining conflict, especially conflict between two nations within the international community, often resolution comes down to a third-party negotiator who is capable of mediating the disagreement towards resolution. Given the success of this system the international community has developed numerous entities and agencies that have been designed to ensure the swift end to international conflict. Entities of note include the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the European Union. These entities go so far as to negotiate common operating practices that each member state knows is expected of them. Under this agreed system, states have no option but to cooperate or face intervention from a host of disgruntled member states. When two nations still choose to disagree with one another and conflict over a topic of interest to the international community, these international orgaizations are called upon to shorten the conflict and suffering of those caught between the two agendas.

In William Ury’s book, The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop, Ury argues that it always takes two (or more) sides to fight but a “third-side” to stop the conflict. (Ury 2000, 118) given his premise there are no situations where the two sides who are conflicting with one another are capable of finding common ground by themselves. Ury’s approach is not without merit, as it borrows its foundational principals from the realism theory of international relations. The Realist perspective argues that every state within the international relations arena has its own agenda that it will protect. (Donnelly 2000, 9) Given both Ury and realism’s joint perspective it’s quite easy to understand the way in which the international community could begin to rely on the strength of ‘third-side’ actors. The international arena has seen the increased development and proliferation of these entities over the past few decades.

When realism is considered alone it may seem that there are few assumptions about international cooperation and conflict resolution that could be effective without the involvement of a third-party; however, the ‘liberalism’ international relations school of thought provides a counter argument. Liberalism contends that realism is correct throughout most of its premise, except that states are capable of transcending their own selfish agendas in the name of greater progress. Given this framework, there are situations where states could overcome their disagreements for the persuit of peace and the joint agenda of the conflicting nations. No longer bound by ‘draconian’ examinations of interstate cooperation, the greater community could see two nations working their issues out to benefit both parties, especially if they grow tired of violence and conflict.

Post 2:

The idea of a negotiation as just being the presentation of a “third side” to the story of any on-going conflict is an oversimplification of the negotiation process. Negotiation, compromise, and agreement do not make up the simply the “third side” to the story – there is much more involved both in the peace process as well as in the final product. Although negotiators often do help parties to reach an option that would be seen as the “third side,” it has come about due to involvement from both parties to reach an agreement that changes the status quo because the parties want to do so; therefore, the “third side” must contain credibility, fairness, and compromise by both sides.

Negotiators cannot dismiss the feelings of the parties involved, nor can they dismiss the personality interactions of the state leaders or the people involved in the negotiation process (Peleg and Scham 2010, 229). There could be many options, but the leaders, governments, and policies of the parties involved must be taken into account.

Furthermore, they must also understand the “red lines” (in other words each party’s no-go criteria on peace) as well as both party’s political constraints in order to ensure that both sides understand each other’s hard lines to negotiation (Ibid. 229-230). This is important in order to ensure that both parties understand where compromises might be necessary and possible in order to appease both sides.

It has been shown, too that negotiators do not just show up with a solution – it must be worked through with all parties involved and they must feel that everyone has had a fair shot at presenting their case and making the willing sacrifices. Multilateral organizations and agreements can be helpful advocates and can help to present a more unbiased approach to conflict negotiation (Jones 2011, 108).

Sometimes, however, there is also the aspect of human rights that must be taken into account – in other words it may not be the first side, the second side, or the third side at all, but right versus wrong in the case of human rights violations. International organizations and other third party negotiators “have an obligation to act as the voice of international human rights norms” when dealing with mediating a conflict (Jenkins and Goetz 2010, 264).

When a compromise and written agreement is finally reached in negotiations, it is important to realize that the “third side” of the story was considered by each of the parties involved and agreed upon, both having to make various sacrifices and thus potentially creating a “new” side to the story.

Post 3

In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues “negatively”. Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.

Because IGO’s result in socialization, they also create a convergence of state interests as participation in IGO’s constrains the interests and actions of states thereby making them more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 108). International non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations to name a few are very effective in fulfilling their mandates. International organizations have the potential to shorten disputes by assisting the process of negotiation between members as we have seen with the Arusha Peace Agreement. The agreement was negotiated between the RFP and the government of Rwanda to end their conflicts at the brink of the genocide that was to take place soon after. The agreement signed on August 4th 1993, however failed to implement the peace for which it was intended (UN.org 2001). However, while IOs might not be able to prevent conflict especially in Rwanda’s case for example, they are able to help limit its destructive impact and end disputes more quickly by aiding members overcome commitment issues, particularly with implementation mechanisms that force states to sign and uphold agreements (Hathaway 2007).

Keeping the International Council on Human Rights Policy 2005’s guideline in mind on what makes an effective national institution, I believe the United Nations to be of the most effective international organizations in dealing with conflict resolution. The purpose of the United Nations Organization as stated on their website is “to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends” (U.N. org, Article 1). However, while the UN may be among the most effective organizations in dealing with Conflict, the organization does have its shortcomings. According to Ramsbotham et al. (2011) “when wars have ended, post-conflict peace building is vital. The UN has often devoted too little attention and too few resources to this critical challenge. Successful peacebuilding requires the deployment of peacekeepers with the right mandate and sufficient capacity to deter would-be spoilers” (Ramsbotham et al. Pg. 198, 2011). Essentially, IGO’s should focus on the conflict resolution concept of state-building in order to “rebuild self-sustaining institutions of governance capable of delivering the essential public goods required to underpin perceived legitimacy and what it is hoped will eventually become an enduring peace” (Ramsbotham et al. Pg. 199, 2011). Building effective systems and institutions of government would ensure that the old systems of operation do not get reintroduced in the conflict zone which often leaves such countries in a much dire state. With both effective systems and institutions of government, countries like the Central African Republic which seem to be in an impasse state of conflict may build effective and legitimate institutions and practices of governance that meet basic human needs (Ramsbotham et al. Pg. 200, 2011).

Ultimately, as we come to the end of the class, one begins to wonder in reflection of the key conflict resolution question “is it possible, not just for individuals, but for societies, to learn how to manage internal and external conflict non-violently?” Although the outline of future conflict may at first appear overwhelming, not to mention the fact that the future is hard to predict, there is hope. Ramsbotham et al (2011), predicts that all four of the main types of large-scale conflict (Interstate conflict, Ethnonationalist conflict, Ideological-government conflict, Economic-factional conflict) will likely occur in the foreseeable future because of the “subterranean global drivers that generate them” (Ramsbotham et al. Pg. 418, 2011). The key to the end of the conflicts lie in effective negotiations for peace between the insurgents and the governments of the nations involved. I believe that long-term peace can be achieved through the implementation of the conflict resolution intervention principles and proper management of the natural resources of conflict ridden countries which may have contributed to the conflict.

Topic American government

Post 1

Lobbying involves more than persuading legislators. Professional lobbyists research and analyze legislation or regulatory proposals, attend congressional hearings, and educate government officials and corporate officers on important issues. Lobbyists also work to change public opinion through advertising campaigns or by influencing opinion leaders. The NRA is an example of a powerful lobbying group that uses direct and indirect methods to achieve their political goals and influence legislation when they can. The NRA uses the indirect method such as television commercials, radio, and now social media to publish messages on current agenda items. On the NRA website at the bottom of their page, they leave a message with instructions on how to contact your Congressmen directly to support the article of information on the page. They also have a donation for funding link on the website in order to make it easier to support the cause and professional lobbyist hired to research and analyze legislation, attend the congressional hearings, and educate government officials on the important issues they hope to change or influence opinions on using the direct method. These funds are also used for the advertising campaigns to influence the public’s opinion on issues and legislation. The NRA’s huge political influence over the past few decades is undeniable. It’s ability to score candidates at every level of government can and is extremely valuable as they have dumped millions of dollars into some of the key political races in states. By flexing its political muscle, the NRA has blocked funding for federal gun violence research, stalled presidential appointments and killed every significant piece of gun-control legislation introduced in Congress since the federal assault weapons ban of 1994. It appears that with President Trump backing the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, the group has lost its enemy from the last administration and must look for new ways to lobby their cause and push their agenda items.

Post 2

Seems like we are saving the best topic for last this week! I am sure being a class made up predominantly of military members and their families, that this one will be popular with a lot of y’all. (As an NRA Life Member since 2013, and since competition shooting and recreational firearms training is arguably my biggest hobby, between myself and my old man, we almost break triple digits in the number of firearms, some of which are belt fed *M-60 cough cough* for those other enthusiasts out there…) Something very near and dear to my heart is the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Findlaw.com, 2017). There is one main organization that comes to mind when we think of the right to bear arms; The National Rifle Association (NRA). They advertise through a wide range of means. You can see ads on TV, billboards, magazines, kiosks at gun shows, and all other outlets. The whole purpose of the NRA is to promote responsible gun ownership, to protect the 2ndAmendment from being encroached upon, and to spread knowledge of firearms and firearms safety across the country. They even fund the construction of ranges around the nation (They just finished one near me a few months ago!). The only real enemies of firearms are rust and politicians. The NRA combats both; one, with a network of supporters that are guided in the right direction to make their voices heard by rallies and events, or even calling the congressional office in your area, which they provide the information to do so. The other, with weapons cleaning products marketed in aim to use profits towards the aforementioned values.

Anyone who pays attention to current politics knows that President Trump is a strong supporter of the NRA. In a recent article by fox news, the fact that President Trump had even addressed the NRA convention was a notable event. The last time that was seen was 1983 with president Ronald Regan (Fox News, 2017). The biggest advantage the NRA now holds is a very outspoken and opinionated President of the United States backing them. Fighting heavy opposition to their values in the last decade with a former President much more focused on gun control put a damper on what they could accomplish, however with President Trump taking the bulls-eye off their back, but also putting the spotlight on them to gain publicity, they should see a rise in memberships and support.

Another fact that the NRA specifically points to, especially when brought under metaphorical fire after literal shootings, is that their main goal is to promote “responsible gun ownership.” They have been on board with making background checks thorough and minimizing the risks of those unfit to posses firearms gaining access to them. While they are a very strongly conservative group, they do still take a logical stance on a level of government regulation that will greater benefit public safety.

Post 3

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has been the front runner for decades in advocating for marijuana to be legalized both medicinally and for recreation use. While not as influential as the other lobby groups that most are accustomed to seeing in the news (NRA, AMA, AARP etc.) NORML has slowly worked it’s way into the public eye with the multiple states allowing medical marijuana as well as Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational use of marijuana. Right now the main focus of NORML is ensuring that the CARERS Act will be upheld in the future, the CARERS Act would keep medical marijuana programs that take part in “production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, laboratory testing, recommending use, or delivery of medical marijuana in instances where these activities comport with state law” exempt from federal prosecution (Strekal 2017).

A large part of NORML’s tactics involved grassroot lobbying and providing scientific data to bolster their cause against marijuana prohibition. They have also been holding local meetings across states to help educate the public on the the benefits of medicinal marijuana to combat opioid addiction and epidemic in the nation, as well as providing education attempting to debunk the stigma that comes with marijuana use. NORML has been heavily using grassroot lobbying to gain momentum, NORML has brought together over 150 local chapters that are active in their states (NORML 2017). A recent study has shown that “Hospitalization rates for opioid painkiller dependence and abuse dropped on average 23 percent in states after marijuana was permitted for medicinal purposes” and a study conducted in 2014 by Dr Marcus Bachhuber found that deaths from opioid overdoses fell by 25 percent in states that legalized medical marijuana (Fox News 2017). With studies like these seemingly having a hard time making it to a large amount of the public, NORML pushes to reform marijuana laws by bringing studies such as this to the light of the public.