Avatar for amix 10 марта 2004
amix сотрудник

Our current task is:

Week 5: Lecture 8-9 (Due Monday, March 15 th , 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

  • In his lecture, Andrew Russell contends that one of the major lessons learnt in El Salvador is that the international community must have a long attention span when managing internal conflicts and must stay on course for 10-15 years, if necessary. Other analysts, by contrast, point to the problems associated with the protracted peace-keeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and with the nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and conclude that short and focused involvements are preferable.
    Which position makes more sense to you and why?
  • Professor Stedman makes a case for the importance of identifying, and strategizing about, spoilers in the process of peace implementation. In this question you are asked to apply his analytical framework for a particular case study, namely the civil war in Bosnia. In your judgment, who, if anyone, were/are the spoilers of the peace process in Bosnia and what strategies should the international community follow, or have followed, to deal with these spoilers? Make a focused argument and back it up with evidence.

(src: http://idl.stanford.edu/104/assignments.html)

#
Avatar for almadi спустя 4 дня (14 марта 2004)
almadi

HI!

how about writing an essay on the first theme?
I gonna read literature on it.
Please, let me know you've read this message of mine.

#
Avatar for amix спустя 3 часа (14 марта 2004)
amix сотрудник

ok, let's

(sorry for not being able again to «wage» discussion here)

btw, ready for the mid-term? )

#
Avatar for amix спустя 1 день (15 марта 2004)
amix сотрудник

Notes sent 2me by Liza I guess, it's a result of your phone talks?) r given below:

Long

Advantages
1. knowledge. Possibility to observe the conflict in it’s evolution. Awareness of details
2. enough time to consolidate and secure positive aspects achieved during the intervention
3. enough time to find possible spoilers to peace implementation and to try to neutralize them or to bring to  cooperation (instead of findining out about their points of view after leaving)
4. enough time to create local organizations and structures that are able to reproduce peaceful (democratic) model

Disadvantages
1. lot’s of resourses needed (spent)
2. there is a threat that parties (party) would get used to the international attendance, would become a kind of dependent, wouldn’t do it’s hard to implement peace but just hope for international help
3. long presence can become too intrusive that is mediators elaborate programs (and try to implement them) that are common for their culture (ex. Western values, points of views etc.)
4. there is a threat that presenting in other country would somehow become useful for one of the countries and it would try to protrate it. Resolutions are usually very vague so that we could interprete it in thousands of different ways. Ex. Risolution 678 claims that all possible means to liberate Kuwait... and protect peace in the region can be used.
5. long presence can be considered as a kind of occupation so that different parties will consolidate to start a “liberation” war against international missions

Perhaps the most astonishing example of long operation is US presense in Japan or USA and Europe presense in Germany with their political and economic programms.

Short

Advantages
1. saving resourses. Perhaps less casualties among peace-keepers
2. neutralizes disadvantages of long presence (2-4) cause leaders of the country doesn’t have anyone to do everything for themselves. They have to mobilize all resourses for peaceful future building . They would elaborate programs taking in consideration pecularities of their own culture, they have similar way of thinking. No other country would be able to use the conflict in its own interests

Disadvantages
1. there is a threat of new war after international mission’s leaving as we don’t solve the problem, don’t eradicate the roots of a conflict. We don’t have enough time to build mutual trust between parties. Threat of the begining of guerilla war although peace agreement was signed.
2. leaders of the country have to do eveything for themselves. Perhaps they lack experience, they don’t know much about peaceful life. The transition moment when there are lot’s of ex-militaries who can nothing but shooting is very difficult

Conclusion:
From my point of view long attention span when managing conflict is much more reliable and stable (in terms of situation and processes in a country after leaving of international mission). However if we have a short of resourses, time, if we have to get involved in other conflicts we could differenciate whether it’s political, economic or religious, ethnic conflict. in first case we could afford short operation as the main idea is to break the system that considered to be unfair. That is much easier than managing ethnic or religious conflicts where you have to broken stereotypes in peoples minds. It takes more time to get rid of this kind of prejudices and to build new relationships between parties. That is here long operation is preferable.
In order to neutrilize negative features of long missions we should
1. have an appropriate mandate for operation (in order to avoid giving carte blanche to one of the mediators/implementers)
2. to define time limits, indicate them in a mandate (so that we could stop an actor that would try to use operation in its interest)
3. to oblige all actors to make reports to the SC (although there is a kind of dilemma: when countries risk life of their citizens they are unlikely to accept controll. At the same time if mediatorsimplementors are out of control there is a threat of taking carte blanche) /darkred

#
Avatar for amix менее чем спустя минуту (15 марта 2004)
amix сотрудник

What I've posted to the official IDL forum:

Peace-Keeping Missions: ‘Blitzfrieden’ or Long-Term Mediation?

Long-term mediation

Advantages

  • Possibility to observe the conflict in its evolution. Short involvement can rarely follow a thorough study of all aspects of the conflict; it can be either too late to invade after such study, or simply impossible to prepare a detailed report on the situation in the country without invading it.
  • Enough time to determine possible spoilers and to find appropriate ways of neutralizing them and/or bringing them to cooperation.
  • Local infrastructure can be built and democratic institutions can be established and supported to maintain peace after withdrawal of the peacekeeping forces.

Disadvantages

  • A lot of resources needed.
  • Strong international and domestic political support required to carry the conflict management to its conclusion.
  • There is a threat that parties could get used to the international attendance, and would become dependent on it. If so, they would not do their best to implement peace but just expect international help.
  • Long presence can be considered by different parties a kind of occupation so that they would temporarily consolidate for a «liberation» war against international missions.
  • Another threat: the presence in the region can somehow become useful for a mediating country, and it would try to protract it. Resolutions are usually very vague so that they can be interpreted in thousands of different ways (e.g., Resolution 678 claims that «all possible means to liberate Kuwait... and protect peace in the region can be used»).

Perhaps the most astonishing example of long operation is US presence in Japan or American and European presence in Germany with their political and economic programs.

Short-term mediation

Advantages

  • Fewer resources spent, and fewer casualties among peace-keepers can be expected.
  • Neutralizes most disadvantages of long presence: leaders of the country have to mobilize their own resources for peaceful future building. The elaborated programs would take into consideration the peculiarities of their own culture as they are expected to have similar way of thinking (especially if the conflict is not religious or ethnical).
  • It would be hard for a country to use the conflict management operation in its own interests.

Disadvantages

  • Unstable peace. There is no enough time neither to build mutual trust between parties nor, of course, to establish institutions that would maintain peace. Thus, since short-term international mission does not eliminate the roots of the conflict, there is a threat of a new [guerilla] war after the region is left on its own, regardless of any peace agreements signed.
  • It is probable that the country leaders would lack experience of building a peaceful life. The transition period is very difficult, when there are many ex-soldiers who can nothing but shooting.

From our point of view, long attention span when managing conflict is much more reliable and stable (regarding the situation and processes in a country after international mission leaves it). However if we are short of resources and time, we could differentiate whether it’s political, economic or religious, ethnic conflict.

In the first case we could afford a short operation since the main idea is to break the system that is considered being wrong. That is much easier than managing ethnic or religious conflicts where mediators have to break stereotypes in people’s minds. It takes more time to get rid of prejudices and to build new relationships between parties. In this case long operation is preferable.

In order to neutralize negative issues of long missions, we should:

  1. Have an appropriate mandate for operation (in order to avoid giving carte blanche to one of the mediators/implementers);
  2. Define time limits, indicate them in the mandate (so that we could stop an actor that would try to use operation in its interest);
  3. Oblige all actors to make reports to the Security Council (although there is a kind of dilemma: when countries risk their citizens’ lives they are unlikely to accept control. At the same time if mediators/implementers are out of control there is a threat of taking carte blanche).

Thanks...

#
Avatar for amix спустя 3 дня (19 марта 2004)
amix сотрудник

We've got 80-90 pts.

Vidal's comments:

DEAR INNA, LIZA, AND ANDREI,

BELOW IS YOUR GRADED ESSAY. FEEL FREE TO REPLY ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON YOUR ESSAY OR ANY OTHER TOPIC OF THE COURSE.

CHEERS,

VIDAL.

Peace-Keeping Missions: ‘Blitzfrieden’ or Long-Term Mediation?

Long-term mediation
Advantages

[WHERE IS YOUR INTRODUCTION?]

Possibility to observe the conflict in its evolution. Short involvement can rarely follow a thorough study of all aspects of the conflict; it can be either too late to invade after such study, or simply impossible to prepare a detailed report on the situation in the country without invading it.
Enough time to determine possible spoilers and to find appropriate ways of neutralizing them and/or bringing them to cooperation.
Local infrastructure can be built and democratic institutions can be established and supported to maintain peace after withdrawal of the peacekeeping forces.
Disadvantages

A lot of resources needed.
Strong international and domestic political support required to carry the conflict management to its conclusion.
There is a threat that parties could get used to the international attendance, and would become dependent on it. If so, they would not do their best to implement peace but just expect international help.
Long presence can be considered by different parties a kind of occupation so that they would temporarily consolidate for a “liberation” war against international missions.
Another threat: the presence in the region can somehow become useful for a mediating country, and it would try to protract it. Resolutions are usually very vague so that they can be interpreted in thousands of different ways (e.g., Resolution 678 claims that “all possible means to liberate Kuwait... and protect peace in the region can be used”).
Perhaps the most astonishing example of long operation is US presence in Japan or American and European presence in Germany with their political and economic programs.

Short-term mediation
Advantages

Fewer resources spent, and fewer casualties among peace-keepers can be expected.
Neutralizes most disadvantages of long presence: leaders of the country have to mobilize their own resources for peaceful future building. The elaborated programs would take into consideration the peculiarities of their own culture as they are expected to have similar way of thinking (especially if the conflict is not religious or ethnical).
It would be hard for a country to use the conflict management operation in its own interests.
Disadvantages

Unstable peace. There is no enough time neither to build mutual trust between parties nor, of course, to establish institutions that would maintain peace. Thus, since short-term international mission does not eliminate the roots of the conflict, there is a threat of a new [guerilla] war after the region is left on its own, regardless of any peace agreements signed.
It is probable that the country leaders would lack experience of building a peaceful life. The transition period is very difficult, when there are many ex-soldiers who can nothing but shooting.

From our point of view, long attention span when managing conflict is much more reliable and stable (regarding the situation and processes in a country after international mission leaves it). However if we are short of resources and time, we could differentiate whether it’s political, economic or religious, ethnic conflict.

In the first case we could afford a short operation since the main idea is to break the system that is considered being wrong. That is much easier than managing ethnic or religious conflicts where mediators have to break stereotypes in people’s minds. It takes more time to get rid of prejudices and to build new relationships between parties. In this case long operation is preferable.

In order to neutralize negative issues of long missions, we should:

Have an appropriate mandate for operation (in order to avoid giving carte blanche to one of the mediators/implementers);
Define time limits, indicate them in the mandate (so that we could stop an actor that would try to use operation in its interest);
Oblige all actors to make reports to the Security Council (although there is a kind of dilemma: when countries risk their citizens’ lives they are unlikely to accept control. At the same time if mediators/implementers are out of control there is a threat of taking carte blanche).

-YOUR ESSAY RAISES VERY GOOD POINTS AND THE COMPARISON IS VERY GOOD!!!
- ALTHOUGH, THE STRUCTURE IS NOT THE REQUIRED FOR AN ESSAY [THE THE WRITING GUIDELINES]. THERE IS NO INTRODUCTION, THE BODY OF YOUR ESSAY IS BULLET TYPE, WHICH IS NOT PER SE INCORRECT, BUT IN THIS CASE IT DOESN’T ALLOW YOU TO DISCUSS MORE IN-DEPTH EVERY POINT MADE. GIVE THE SHORT LENGTH OF THIS ESSAY, YOU COULD, INSTEAD, HAVE TAKEN ONLY THE MAIN POINTS AND DISCUSSED THEM WITH MORE DETAIL.
- THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE COURSE READINGS IN YOUR PAPER. THIS IS A CORE PART OF THE COURSE THAT YOU SHOULD WORK ON. YOU SHOULD LET THE READER KNOW IF THE IDEAS YOU’RE PRESENTING ARE YOURS OR SOMEBODY ELSE’S IDEAS.

GRADE: 80-90

Понятно. Списки в конечном варианте не надо, только в драфте. Ладно. Хорошо. Окей.

И исчшщо у на_с с сс_ылками трабли...

#
Avatar for almadi спустя 8 часов (20 марта 2004)
almadi

Do not you find that all those requirements on the structure of essay are in reality sooooooo stupid.... every time he writes we don't follow the structure I feel like someone deprived me of my liberty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....................

What about readings - we'll try to do ourbest.....

c u.

#
Avatar for amix спустя 3 часа (20 марта 2004)
amix сотрудник

maybe... anyway, imho, lists are definitely not the worst way to express thoughts, and maybe even the best one for such cases; i hate extracting the sence from a lake of meaningless water since the main aim of there essays is not practising English but expressing ideas.

well, if they ask us to follow the white rabbit, let's do it. although u'd rather not, and i'd too. :)

Дискуссия завершена.

Если хотите возобновить обсуждение, создайте дискуссию со ссылкой на эту страницу.